2016 (5) TMI 1563 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder or suicide - dowry demands - offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code or not - whether the Court of Sessions was empowered to take cognizance of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, when similar application to this effect was rejected by the JMFC while committing the case to Sessions Court, taking cognizance of offence only Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and specifically refusing to take cognizance of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A Indian Penal Code? HELD THAT - A bare reading of Section 190 of the Code which uses the expression any offence amply shows that no restriction is imposed on the Magistrate that Magistrate can take cognizance only for the offence triable by Magistrate Court and not in respect of offence triable by a Court of Session. Thus, he has the power to take cognizance of an offence which is triable by the Court of Session. If it is so, the question is as to what meaning is to be assigned to the words as a Court of original jurisdiction occurring in Section 193 of the Code when Court of Session takes cognizance of any offence. To put it otherwise, when the Magistrate has taken cognizance and thereafter only committed the case to the Court of Session, whether the Court of Session is not empowered to take cognizance of an offence again Under Section 193 of the Code or it still has power to take cognizance acting as Court of original jurisdiction. The Magistrate had no business to discharge the Appellant. In fact, Section 207-A in the old Code of Criminal Procedure, empowered the Magistrate to exercise such a power. However, in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is no provision analogous to the said Section 207-A. He was bound under law, to commit the case to the Sessions Court, where such application for discharge would be considered. The order of discharge is therefore, a nullity, being without jurisdiction. Here is a case where the Police report which was submitted to the Magistrate, the IO had not included the Appellants as accused persons. The complainant had filed application before the learned Magistrate with prayer to take cognizance against the Appellants as well. This application was duly considered and rejected by the learned Magistrate. The situation in this case is, thus, not where the investigation report/chargesheet filed Under Section 173(8) of the Code implicated the Appellants and Appellants contended that they are wrongly implicated. On the contrary, the Police itself had mentioned in its final report that case against the Appellants had not been made out. Whether this Court exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution to interdict such an order? - HELD THAT - The order of the Magistrate refusing to take cognizance against the Appellants is revisable. This power of revision can be exercised by the superior Court, which in this case, will be the Court of Sessions itself, either on the revision petition that can be filed by the aggrieved party or even suo moto by the revisional Court itself. The Court of Sessions was, thus, not powerless to pass an order in his revisionary jurisdiction. Things would have been different had he passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence against the Appellants, without affording any opportunity to them, since with the order that was passed by the learned Magistrate a valuable right had accrued in favour of these Appellants. However, in the instant case, it is found that a proper opportunity was given to the Appellants herein who had filed reply to the application of the complainant and the Sessions Court had also heard their arguments. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of second application for cognizance by the Sessions Court after the Magistrate's refusal.
2. Powers of the Magistrate and Sessions Court under Sections 190 and 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Interpretation of the term "cognizance" in the context of the Magistrate and Sessions Court.
4. Role of the Magistrate in committing cases to the Sessions Court.
5. Applicability of the judgment in Dharam Pal's case.
6. Revisional powers of the Sessions Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Second Application for Cognizance by the Sessions Court:
The appellants contended that the second application for cognizance by the Sessions Court was impermissible as the Magistrate had already refused to take cognizance under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the Sessions Court was empowered to take cognizance after the Magistrate's refusal. It was argued that under Section 190 of the Code, cognizance can only be taken once, and the Sessions Court's action amounted to taking cognizance a second time, which is not allowed.

2. Powers of the Magistrate and Sessions Court under Sections 190 and 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Court analyzed Sections 190 and 193 of the Code, which outline the powers of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court. Section 190 allows the Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence, while Section 193 states that the Sessions Court can only take cognizance after the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of offences triable by the Sessions Court and can commit the case to the Sessions Court if it is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out.

3. Interpretation of the Term "Cognizance":
The Court discussed the meaning of "cognizance" and clarified that it refers to the application of the judicial mind to the facts of the case to determine whether an offence has been committed. The Court referred to the judgment in Dharam Pal's case, which held that the Sessions Court can take cognizance of offences after the case is committed to it by the Magistrate, and this does not amount to taking cognizance a second time.

4. Role of the Magistrate in Committing Cases to the Sessions Court:
The Court reiterated that the Magistrate plays an active role in committing cases to the Sessions Court. The Magistrate is not merely a post office but has the authority to take cognizance, issue process, and summon the accused before committing the case to the Sessions Court. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate must apply its mind to the facts and decide whether a prima facie case is made out before committing the case.

5. Applicability of the Judgment in Dharam Pal's Case:
Both parties relied on the judgment in Dharam Pal's case to support their arguments. The Court analyzed the ratio of Dharam Pal's case, which held that the Sessions Court can take cognizance of offences after the case is committed to it by the Magistrate. The Court concluded that the Sessions Court's action in taking cognizance was in line with the legal principles established in Dharam Pal's case.

6. Revisional Powers of the Sessions Court:
The Court noted that the order of the Magistrate refusing to take cognizance was revisable. The Sessions Court had the power to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences against the appellants. The Court found that the Sessions Court had given a proper opportunity to the appellants to present their case and had heard their arguments before taking cognizance. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the Sessions Court's order and dismissed the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Sessions Court's decision to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC against the appellants. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance and commit cases to the Sessions Court, and the Sessions Court can take cognizance of offences after the case is committed to it. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the Sessions Court's order.

← Previous Next →