9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the case under Sec. 190(1)(b) despite the police report under Sec. 173 stating no offence was committed. 2. Whether the Magistrate was required to record the statement of the complainant and witnesses under Sec. 200 before issuing process. 3. The validity of the Magistrate's order in light of the police report and the legal provisions. Summary: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Sec. 190(1)(b) The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate acted within his jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the case under Sec. 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the police report under Sec. 173 concluded that no offence was committed. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions drawn by the police in their report and may decide to issue process if he finds sufficient grounds for proceeding. The Magistrate has several options upon receiving a police report: he may drop the action, take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 190(1)(b), or proceed under Sec. 190(1)(a) based on the original complaint. Issue 2: Requirement to Record Statements under Sec. 200 The Court clarified that the Magistrate is not required to record the statements of the complainant and witnesses under Sec. 200 if he takes cognizance of the case under Sec. 190(1)(b) based on a police report. The Magistrate may issue process without such recordings if he deems there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This is distinct from taking cognizance under Sec. 190(1)(a), where recording statements under Sec. 200 is mandatory. Issue 3: Validity of the Magistrate's Order The Supreme Court found that the Magistrate's order was valid and within his powers. The Court referred to previous decisions, including *Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra* and *Tula Ram & Ors. v. Kishore Singh*, to support the view that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence despite the police report suggesting otherwise. The Court noted that the Magistrate's detailed order was unnecessary and some observations about the District Magistrate were uncalled for, but these did not affect the validity of the order. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Magistrate's decision to take cognizance and issue process.
|
