Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C

12 January 2025 5:34 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a notable judgment, the Madras High Court has directed the Judicial Magistrate of Sathankulam to refer a theft complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without insisting on the provision of receipts for the stolen items. This ruling by Justice B. Pugalendhi emphasizes that the absence of purchase receipts should not hinder the process of referring a legitimate complaint to the police for investigation.
The petitioner, Shanthi, filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a preliminary inquiry into the theft of a motor pump set and wires from her agricultural land. The learned Judicial Magistrate of Sathankulam had returned her application citing several deficiencies, including the absence of a process memo, non-affixation of stamps on xerox copies, lack of documents regarding the stolen property, and an unclear prayer against all accused persons.
Shanthi claimed that she had complied with all conditions except for providing receipts for the stolen items, as she did not possess any such documentation. Despite her explanation, the Magistrate did not forward her complaint, prompting her to file a criminal original petition to the High Court.
The High Court noted that while the Magistrate’s role includes verifying whether a prima facie offense is established, the absence of receipts alone should not prevent the referral of the complaint for police inquiry. Justice Pugalendhi observed, “The motor pump set and wires have been stolen from the petitioner’s agricultural land. However, she is not having any receipts for the same. On this score alone, reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be denied.”
The court underscored the importance of assessing the complaint based on its merits rather than strictly adhering to procedural requirements that could unjustly obstruct justice. The judge stated, “The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, while dealing with an application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, has to ascertain whether prima facie offense is made out or not.”
Justice Pugalendhi emphasized that the essence of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is to ensure that legitimate complaints are investigated, even in the absence of formal documentation. He instructed the Magistrate to refer Shanthi’s complaint to the concerned police officer for an inquiry and to ascertain the occurrence of any offense based on the available evidence and circumstances.
“The motor pump set and wires have been stolen from the petitioner’s agricultural land. However, she is not having any receipts for the same. On this score alone, reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be denied,” stated Justice B. Pugalendhi. He further added, “It can be referred to the police officer concerned for conducting an enquiry and to ascertain whether any offense has been made out and thereafter, a case shall be registered.”
The Madras High Court’s decision to allow the petition and direct the Magistrate to refer the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that procedural technicalities do not impede access to justice. This judgment sets a significant precedent for handling similar cases, reinforcing that the absence of documentation should not bar the investigation of genuine complaints.

 

Date of Decision: 16.07.2024
 

Latest Legal News