Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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