Summary
The High Court wrongly ordered reconsideration on the premise that the Magistrate had ignored a protest petition against a closure report. The Magistrate had considered the objections and investigation material, including medical statements. Although a qualifying protest petition may be treated as a complaint, that course is not compulsory. The complainant retained the right to file a regular complaint; the High Court order was set aside for all accused in the circumstances.
Issues
- Whether the Magistrate had failed to consider the protest petition before accepting the closure report.
- Whether a Magistrate must treat every protest petition as a complaint and initiate complaint proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(d), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A protest petition may be treated as a complaint if it satisfies the requirements of the statutory definition; the objections here did not automatically initiate a complaint case. (¶ 42–45)
Held
- Before accepting a closure report, the Magistrate must hear the informant and consider the protest petition and investigation material. The record showed that this had been done; the High Court’s contrary factual premise was erroneous. (¶ 25–33)
- Cognizance on the police material and cognizance on a complaint follow distinct procedures. A Magistrate finding no prima facie case on the investigation material cannot be compelled merely by the protest petition’s filing to treat it as a complaint; a regular complaint remains available. (¶ 34–45)
- The defective premise of the High Court order applied equally to the other accused relatives, who had not separately appealed. In the circumstances, the Court also exercised Article 142 power to set aside the order as a whole. (¶ 46–50)
Result
Appeal allowed and High Court order set aside, including in relation to the other accused. This was without prejudice to the complainant’s right to file a complaint, as recognised by the Additional Sessions Judge.