Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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