Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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