Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court 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 Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Remands Criminal Complaint for Proper Inquiry, Dismissing Complaint Without Examination of Witnesses

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2012, delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, remanded the case back for a proper inquiry. The appeal was filed by Dilip Kumar against Brajraj Shrivastava & Anr., with allegations of multiple offenses punishable under Sections 323, 342, 500, 504, 506, 295-A, 298, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The controversy arose when the learned Magistrate, without conducting a proper inquiry, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The court found that the Magistrate neglected to record statements of witnesses mentioned in the complaint, contrary to the requirements of Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C.

"The learned Magistrate has a discretion either to inquire into the case himself, or to direct a Police Officer to investigate and submit a report. In this case, he took recourse to the first option. A perusal of the complaint shows that eight witnesses were specifically named in the complaint. The learned Magistrate did not examine any of them." (Para 4)

Relying on precedents, the apex court stressed the necessity of considering the statements of the complainant and witnesses before dismissing a complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

"After taking recourse to sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., before dismissing a complaint by taking recourse to Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has to consider the statements of the complainant and his witnesses." (Para 5)

The High Court's order remanding the complaint for a proper inquiry under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. was upheld by the Supreme Court. The court also clarified that certain observations, including those regarding the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., were tentative and would have no bearing on the ultimate conclusion of the learned Magistrate.

"The observations made in the impugned order, including the observations on requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., will have to be held as tentative observations, which will have no bearing on the ultimate conclusion to be drawn by the learned Magistrate." (Para 6)

With this ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of a thorough and proper inquiry before dismissing a complaint, ensuring that justice is served and the interests of the parties involved are adequately safeguarded. The case has been remitted to the learned Magistrate for the required inquiry under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C.

Date of Decision: 26th July 2023

DILIP KUMAR  vs BRAJRAJ SHRIVASTAVA & ANR.  

Latest Legal News