2003 (12) TMI 685 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Magistrate can permit a person against whom a complaint is filed to participate in the proceedings for adjudicating guilt or otherwise during an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Participation of the Accused in Section 202 Inquiry:
The primary legal question was whether the Magistrate, while holding an inquiry into a complaint under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), can permit the person against whom the complaint is filed to participate in the proceedings. The court emphatically answered "No," citing the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. The purpose of an inquiry under Section 202 is to ascertain whether the complaint has a valid foundation for issuing process, not to conduct a trial or adjudicate guilt.

2. Procedure Adopted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the respondents to participate in the proceedings, file affidavits, and written submissions, which was deemed inappropriate. The court highlighted that the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is not a trial but a preliminary step to determine whether there is sufficient ground to proceed. The Magistrate's decision should be based solely on the allegations in the complaint and the statements of the complainant and witnesses, without considering the respondent's version or evidence.

3. Legal Precedents and Interpretations:
The court referred to several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in *Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose* and *Dr. S.S. Khanna v. Chief Secretary, Patna*, which clarified that an accused person does not have the right to participate in the proceedings under Section 202 Cr.P.C. until process is issued. The accused can be present as a member of the public but cannot produce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or participate in the proceedings in any capacity that influences the inquiry.

4. Violation of Procedural Norms:
The court found that the procedure adopted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate violated the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. By allowing the respondents to file affidavits and written submissions, the Magistrate indulged in adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the respondents, which is not permissible at the pre-summoning stage.

5. Restoration and Directions for Further Proceedings:
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and revived the complaint. The trial court was directed to decide the matter independently of the affidavits filed by the respondents and solely based on the allegations in the complaint and the statements of the complainant and witnesses. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on a specified date for further proceedings.

Conclusion:
The judgment emphasized that an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is not a trial and should be conducted without the participation of the person against whom the complaint is filed. The Magistrate's role is to determine whether there is sufficient ground to proceed based on the complainant's evidence, without considering the respondent's defense at this stage. The court's decision reinstated the complaint and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with the correct legal procedures.