Summary
A judicial complaint under Sections 340 or 341 CrPC is ordinarily dealt with as a case instituted on a police report under Section 343(1). Its flexible wording permits a sparingly used summary inquiry when materials are inadequate, but does not import the separate complaint-case procedure under Chapter XIX-B. The Court restored a perjury charge quashed for failure to examine all prosecution witnesses before charge.
Issues
- Whether Section 244 pre-charge evidence requirements governed a judicial perjury complaint.
- What flexibility the words as far as may be conferred under Section 343(1).
Provisions considered
- Section 343(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The reproduced provision required treatment as if instituted on a police report, preserving limited discretion to gather necessary material by summary inquiry. (¶¶ 32–33, 51–58)
Held
- A preliminary inquiry before a Section 340 complaint is not mandatory. The complaining court’s satisfaction concerns apparent commission and expediency in the interests of justice, not proof of guilt at the later trial. (¶ 30–43)
- Adequate materials require proceeding as on a police report. If inquiry or materials are lacking and justice genuinely requires more, the Magistrate may conduct a cautious summary inquiry. This discretion is to be exercised sparingly, considering the offence’s effect on administration of justice. (¶ 54–58)
- Chapter XIX-B procedure for cases instituted otherwise than on a police report does not apply to complaints under Sections 340 or 341. Examination of some witnesses here was a summary inquiry, not a requirement to exhaust all prosecution evidence before charge. (¶ 58–60)
Result
State appeals allowed; High Court order set aside. Magistrate directed to proceed from framing of charge under Section 343(1), without any Supreme Court finding on the charge’s merits.