High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

Supreme Court: Magistrate Cannot Dismiss Private Complaint Without Scrutinizing Allegations

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On May 4th, 2023, the Supreme Court of India passed a significant judgment, in which it held that a magistrate could not dismiss a private complaint without scrutinizing the allegations and determining whether the complaint was baseless or vexatious. The case involved allegations of rape and sexual harassment made by a woman against a man with whom she had been acquainted and worked.

The accused had challenged the magistrate's order in the high court, which had remitted the matter back to the magistrate for further examination. The accused had then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the high court's order.

The Supreme Court held that the magistrate could not dismiss a private complaint without examining it judiciously and in accordance with the law. The Court further held that the magistrate had misread the high court's order, which had directed him to examine the complaint and apply his judicious mind. The Court remitted the matter back to the magistrate for further examination and directed him to decide whether or not to issue directions under section 156(3) or to take cognizance and follow the procedure under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also directed that the magistrate could direct a preliminary inquiry by the police in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 10 SCC 740.

The Court observed that every criminal case is a voyage of discovery, in which the quest for truth is the primary purpose. However, the Court also noted that it is difficult for a woman to come forward and make a statement alleging rape or sexual assault, and that courts must remain alive to this fact while examining the question of delay in making a complaint. The Court further held that the complainant's conduct and credibility should be examined in cases of delay in filing a complaint.

The Supreme Court also noted that a magistrate has the discretion to send a private complaint under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the police for investigation. However, when a magistrate chooses not to proceed under section 156(3), he cannot simply dismiss the complaint without scrutinizing the allegations and determining whether the complaint is baseless or vexatious.

Supreme Court affirmed the high court's order remitting the matter back to the magistrate for further examination and set aside the magistrate's subsequent order on remand. The Court directed the magistrate to examine and apply his judicial mind and then exercise discretion whether or not to issue directions under section 156(3) or whether he should take cognizance and follow the procedure under section 202. The Court also directed that copies of the papers and documents filed before the high court and the Supreme Court could be forwarded and brought on record of the magistrate, and that the complainant/informant would be entitled to question the genuineness of the contents of the said documents.

On May 4th, 2023

Kailash Vijayvargiya VS Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others

Latest Legal News