Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed by an advocate seeking to quash an investigation ordered by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, Mumbai. The investigation was related to an extortion case under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The Court found the petition to be premature since the Magistrate had only directed an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and had not yet issued any process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, an advocate, was accused in an extortion case involving a matrimonial dispute. The complainant, involved in the dispute, alleged that the petitioner was part of an extortion plot. The complainant initially approached the Kurla Police Station, but when no action was taken, he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was then treated as a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. The Metropolitan Magistrate directed an investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to determine if there was enough ground to proceed further.
Issues:
The core issue was whether the petition challenging the investigation was maintainable at this stage, as no process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. had been issued yet.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the complaint was a misuse of the legal process, asserting that she had no involvement in the alleged extortion. She further contended that the Magistrate’s order was invalid because the jurisdiction for such a complaint lay in Goa and not in Mumbai.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The complainant argued that the petition was not maintainable as no process had been issued yet, and the Magistrate had merely ordered an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. He also claimed that the petitioner was actively involved in threatening and coercing him in relation to the extortion case.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court held that the petition was premature since the Magistrate had not yet formed an opinion to issue any process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate’s directive was only for an investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to gather more facts. The Court reasoned that the petitioner could raise her concerns, including issues of territorial jurisdiction, at a later stage if the Magistrate decided to issue process. The Court emphasized that no final decision had been made, and the investigation was still in its preliminary stage.
Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed as premature. The Court stated that the petitioner could challenge the process at a later stage if it was issued, but at this stage, the Magistrate’s decision to order an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was appropriate and valid.
Implications:
This ruling affirms that challenges to investigations ordered under Section 202 Cr.P.C. are premature unless and until the Magistrate issues a process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. It underscores that courts will not interfere with preliminary inquiries or investigations unless procedural violations or abuses of law are evident.
