How Should Magistrates Deal With Protest Complaints? SC Explains [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh explained the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrates in dealing with protest complaints. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph has observed that a protest petition can be treated as a complaint and a magistrate can deal with the same as required under Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if it fulfills the requirements of a complaint.The bench comprising observed that when the Magistrate does not treat the protest petition as a complaint, the remedy of the complainant would be to file a fresh complaint and invite the Magistrate to follow the procedure under Section 200 of the Code or Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code.The Supreme Court has referred to many Judgments on the subject. We are using some of the extracts from the quotes to enable the reader to understand the issue. There is no provision in the Code to file a protest petition by the informant who lodged the first information report. But this has been the practice.Who can file Protest Complaint?As indicated in Bhagwant Singh case [(1985) 2 SCC 537 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267 : AIR 1985 SC 1285] the right is conferred on the informant and none else. Options Before a Magistrate on receipt of Final ReportWhen a report forwarded by the police to the Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i) is placed before him several situations arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may either (1) accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding, or (3) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require the police to make a further report. The report may on the other hand state that according to the police, no offence appears to have been committed. When such a report is placed before the Magistrate he has again option of adopting one of the three courses open i.e. (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding; or (2) he may disagree with the report and take the view that there is sufficient ground for further proceeding, take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under Section 156(3). The position is, therefore, now well settled that upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the investigating officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also. [See India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1989) 2 SCC 132 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 306 : AIR 1989 SC 885] .] The informant is not prejudicially affected when the Magistrate decides to take cognizance and to proceed with the case. But where the Magistrate decides that sufficient ground does not subsist for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that there is material for proceeding against some and there are insufficient grounds in respect of others, the informant would certainly be prejudiced as the first information report lodged becomes wholly or partially ineffective. Therefore, this Court indicated in Bhagwant Singh case [(1985) 2 SCC 537 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267 : AIR 1985 SC 1285] that where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and to drop the proceeding or takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first information report, notice to the informant and grant of opportunity of being heard in the matter becomes mandatory.There cannot be any doubt or dispute that only because the Magistrate has accepted a final report, the same by itself would not stand in his way to take cognizance of the offence on a protest/complaint petition In this case [Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh], a First Information Report alleging offences under Sections 201, 304B and 498A of ...

How Should Magistrates Deal With Protest Complaints? SC Explains [Read Judgment]

Ashok Kini

"Magistrate could not be compelled to take cognizance by treating the protest petition as a complaint."

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ashok Kini

How Should Magistrates Deal With Protest Complaints? SC Explains [Read Judgment]

Ashok Kini

"Magistrate could not be compelled to take cognizance by treating the protest petition as a complaint."

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ashok Kini

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers