Citation : 2004 Local Law (CG) 22
The Chhattisgarh High Court In a clear reaffirmation of a magistrate’s discretion to act on police material, the Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg. The petitioners accused in a 2000 assault complaint argued that the magistrate exceeded his powers by taking cognizance of offences and by directing the police to file a charge-sheet. The High Court disagreed on both points and upheld the magistrate’s order.
The dispute began with a complaint lodged on April 1, 2000. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, acting together, stopped him, used abusive language and assaulted him, leaving him with pain near his left eye and throat. The underlying background was a landlord-tenant dispute over an allegedly illegal water connection and municipal disconnection that had inflamed relations between the parties.
After investigation the police submitted a negative report. The investigating officer said that the matter arose from a property dispute and that the ingredients of offences under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 294 (obscene acts/words) of the Indian Penal Code were not made out, and therefore a charge-sheet was not warranted. Notably, the officer did not state that Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) was absent from the case.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, issued notice to the complainant on receipt of the police report. After hearing the complainant and examining the First Information Report, medical evidence and witness statements recorded during investigation, the magistrate concluded that prima facie offences under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 (common intention) were made out. The magistrate therefore took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and issued summons, while administratively asking the police to furnish copies of the documents and the final report so those could be supplied to the accused.
The State’s revision against the magistrate’s order was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on May 17, 2003. The accused then moved the High Court under Section 482, arguing that the magistrate had no authority to direct the police to file a charge-sheet and that, because the complainant had filed a protest, the matter should have been treated as a complaint case rather than a police challan case.
Justice Bhadoo reviewed the legal framework carefully. The court stressed the separation of investigative and judicial functions under Chapters XII and XIV of the Cr.P.C. Investigation, including decisions whether to forward a case to a magistrate, lies with the officer in charge of the police station. But a magistrate is not bound by the investigative officer’s conclusion. Section 190(1)(b) expressly allows a magistrate to take cognizance on a police report if the material filed satisfies him that a case is made out.
Relying on precedent, the High Court reiterated that a magistrate may ignore a negative police conclusion and independently determine whether the material placed before him justifies taking cognizance. The court also distinguished between ordering the police to re-investigate under Section 156(3) and directing them to file a charge-sheet. It held that the magistrate had not asked the police to initiate further investigation or to file a fresh charge-sheet; he had only requested copies of the documents the police had already placed before the court to enable fair notice to the accused.
On the point that the magistrate should have proceeded as a complaint case, the court observed that a protest petition by a complainant does not automatically convert proceedings into a complaint trial. If the magistrate takes cognizance on the police papers after hearing the complainant, the case proceeds as one instituted on a police report. The court found no procedural error in the magistrate’s approach.
Summing up, the High Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order. The ancient power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process under Section 482 was considered, but the court concluded that exceptional relief was not warranted. The petition was dismissed and costs were awarded to the State.
This decision reinforces two practical points for criminal practitioners. First, a negative police report is not binding on a magistrate. Second, magistrates may take cognizance if the record furnished by police and witnesses provides sufficient prima facie material, and asking for copies of the police papers to provide to the accused is an administrative necessity that does not amount to directing the police to file a charge-sheet.
Case Details : Misc. Criminal Case No. 366 of 2004, Kamaruddin and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (15.05.2004)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Abhishek Sinha and Manoj Paranjpe, Advs. For Respondents/Defendant: A.K. Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent No. 1
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 154; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 156; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 156(3); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 157; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 160, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 163, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 165; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 166; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 169; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 170; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 190; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 190(1)(b); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 2(h); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 204; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 210; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 294; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 323; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 34; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 341
Cases Referred:
Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 117; State of Maharashtra v. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and Ors., (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 42; Swil Ltd. v. State of Delhi and Anr., (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 670
======
अपराध – संज्ञान (Cognizance) — दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) की धारा 190 एवं धारा 482, तथा भारतीय दण्ड संहिता, 1860 (IPC) की धारा 323 और धारा 341 के अंतर्गत।
याचिकाकर्ता पर धारा 323, 341 सहपठित धारा 34 IPC के अंतर्गत अपराध करने का आरोप लगाया गया था। मजिस्ट्रेट ने उक्त धाराओं के तहत याचिकाकर्ताओं के विरुद्ध संज्ञान लिया। इस आदेश को चुनौती देते हुए वर्तमान याचिका धारा 482 Cr.P.C. के अंतर्गत दायर की गई।
निर्णय (Held):
मामले के तथ्यों के अनुसार, पुलिस ने अपनी रिपोर्ट में धारा 294 और 341 IPC के अपराधों के संबंध में नकारात्मक रिपोर्ट (Negative Report) प्रस्तुत की थी और कहा कि इन धाराओं के अंतर्गत कोई अपराध नहीं बनता है, इसलिए चालान प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया। हालाँकि, रिपोर्ट में यह नहीं कहा गया था कि धारा 323 IPC का अपराध नहीं बनता है।
मुख्य न्यायिक दंडाधिकारी (CJM) ने पुलिस रिपोर्ट, प्राथमिकी (FIR), चिकित्सीय रिपोर्ट (Medical Report) और गवाहों के बयान का परीक्षण करने के बाद यह पाया कि याचिकाकर्ताओं के विरुद्ध prima facie (प्रथम दृष्टया) अपराध सिद्ध होता है। इसलिए उन्होंने धारा 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. के अंतर्गत संज्ञान लिया।
उच्च न्यायालय ने यह माना कि मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा किया गया संज्ञान कानून के अनुरूप है और इसमें किसी प्रकार की अवैधता नहीं है। मजिस्ट्रेट अपने अधिकार क्षेत्र में रहकर ही कार्य कर रहे थे। इसलिए इस मामले में धारा 482 Cr.P.C. के अंतर्गत किसी प्रकार का हस्तक्षेप उचित नहीं है।
परिणाम: याचिका निरस्त (Dismissed)।
