Summary
The Court restored a Magistrate’s decision to treat a protest petition as a complaint and summon the accused after examining the complainant and eight witnesses. The High Court wrongly treated further police investigation as the required course and interfered with a lawful exercise of discretion. It also should not have allowed the belated amendment challenging the earlier complaint-registration order on these facts.
Issues
- Whether a Magistrate could pursue the complaint procedure after receiving an adverse police final report.
- Whether the High Court properly interfered with the registration and subsequent summons orders.
Provisions considered
- Section 190(1)(a) and (b), read with Sections 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Magistrate could choose complaint cognizance and examine witnesses rather than accept the police conclusion or order further investigation. (¶¶ 6, 10, 11, 12)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court erred in allowing a challenge to the lawful earlier order by amendment nearly four years later and in setting aside the summons order. (¶¶ 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13)
Held
- On receipt of the police report the Magistrate may drop action for want of sufficient grounds, take cognizance on the police material despite its conclusion, or proceed on the complaint under Section 190(1)(a) and the complaint procedure. The choice requires independent application of mind. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Earlier acceptance of a closure report or refusal to take cognizance on it does not by itself bar cognizance of a complaint or protest petition containing the same or similar allegations. (¶ 11)
- Here the CJM’s detailed choice to proceed under Section 200 was lawful. Summons followed examination of the complainant and eight witnesses and recorded prima facie satisfaction. Neither that discretion nor the earlier order warranted the High Court’s interference. (¶ 12)
- The High Court should not, in these circumstances, have permitted an amendment challenging the earlier order after about four years. The ruling did not impose a general statutory prohibition on every amendment in criminal proceedings. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeals allowed. High Court orders set aside; CJM directed to proceed with the complaint according to law. Accused permitted to respond to summons and appear within two weeks. Pending applications disposed of.