AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 14th July, 2017, passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ramban, by virtue of which the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of Munsiff JMIC, Ramban dated 28th November, 2015 was dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the following grounds:-
i) That bare perusal of Section 200 Cr.P.C warrants that whenever a complainant approaches the Court with a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate is supposed to firstly record the statement of the complainant and witness (if any), but the same was never done in this case.
ii) That the procedure given in Section 203 of Cr. P.C for dismissal of a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C is not even given any respect.
iii) That dates have been played with in this matter just to cause failure of justice to the petitioner/complainant, it is worthwhile to mention that since the Complaint was presented before learned CJM, Ramban on 12th November, 2015, but in the order it is shown that the date is 28th November, 2015. And even if the date in the order is believed to be true then how come in a Complaint, which has been addressed to learned CJM, Ramban, learned CJM, Ramban has passed order, notwithstanding the fact that neither the Complaint was transferred nor learned CJM, Ramban was on leave on 28th November, 2015.
iv) This claim is further substantiated when in a RTI reply, the PIO District Court, Ramban states that the learned Munsiff was incharge CJM, Ramban on 12th November, 2015 and on 28th November, 2015, both learned Munsiff, Ramban and learned CJM, Ramban were on duty.
v) The mismatch of dates goes further when the date of disposal is different in two different judicial orders. The date of disposal in the order of learned Munsiff is 28th November, 2015 and date of disposal in the order of learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Ramban is 02nd December, 2015.
vi) That further the revision petition was not decided for a period of almost 20 months, i.e., from 16th December, 2015 to 14th July, 2017, speaks volumes regarding miscarriage of justice.
vii) That the gravity of the matter can be ascertained with the fact that the law and the procedure, both were kept aside just to keep justice at bay.
From the bare perusal of the file, it is evident that the petitioner has filed Complaint before the JMIC/Munsiff, Ramban. The relevant extract of the same reads as follows:-
"3. Then the complainant put a banner on the overhead food bridge near Masjid Market on 02nd November, 2015, to greet the people on the eve of Diwali. And the complainant had specifically sought permission for putting a banner there, the document of permission is annexed herewith.
But on 05th of November, 2015, the accused deliberately while trying to diminish the value and utility of the banner, put his own banner exactly on the banner of the complaint, hence committing a mischief. The accused even tried to break open the banner and threatened the complaint for loss of his reputation by falsely indicting him in some frivolous case by using police.
The complainant filed a police complaint in this regard instantaneously but the police officials shirked to provide any sort of respite to the aggrieved, with an action against the aggressor-accused. As the accused is a legislator and an obstreperous man, the police is maintaining absolute inertia hence keeping him immune to strict execution of law. So this extreme lassitude of police can only be compensated by the active interference of the Court to establish that the rule of law is not a frangible entity."
The Munsiff, Ramban on 28th November, 2015 dismissed the Complaint, as Magistrate was of the view that there is no essential ingredient made out in the Complaint for taking cognizance. The Magistrate further held that the petitioner has not filed any Complaint before the police authority before filing the Complaint. Thereafter, the complainant filed the revision petition before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban, who also dismissed the same on 14th July, 2017 on the ground that the essential ingredients of offence alleged are not made out. So, the order of the Magistrate was upheld.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case titled, "Cref Finance Ltd. Vs. Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2005 (7) SCC 467 as well as on the judgment of High Court of Kerala in case
titled, "Biju Purushothaman Vs. The State of Kerala and ors, passed in Crl. R.P. No. 1255 of 2008 on 20th June, 2008.
I have considered the contentions of petitioner. From the perusal of documents attached with the petition, it is evident that petitioner filed a complaint before Court of JMIC, Ramban, who dismissed the complaint on 28.11.2015 at threshold without recording the statement of complainant, thereby observing that no essential ingredients of any offence has been made out; and petitioner has not fulfilled any requirement of section 154 of Cr.P.C. Similarly the Sessions Judge has upheld the order of JMIC on 14.7.2017 and dismissed the Revision filed by petitioner.
Magistrates takes cognizance on complaint u/s Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure, The term "taking cognizance" has not been defined in the Code but in general sense it means to take notice judicially. It is sine qua non for trial the Magistrate is said to have taken cognizance of an offence as soon as he applies his mind to the suspected commission of the offence with a view to decide whether to initiate judicial proceedings against the offender. Thus taking cognizance includes intention of initiating a judicial proceeding against an offender in respect of an offence or taking steps to see whether there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings. Section 190 Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence in certain circumstances. It is clarified that initiation of proceedings dealt with in Chapter XIV is different from commencement of proceedings‟ covered by Chapter XVI of the Code.
A Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence either on a complaint lodged before him by the complainant who considers that a wrong has been done to him or to the public or on a police report submitted to him under Section 173 (2) after the police has investigated the case on the basis of FIR. When a complaint is filed before a Magistrate, it is not always necessary that he must take cognizance of the offence he may simply order investigation by the police. However, if the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the Complaint for the purpose of proceeding with it under Sections 200 to 203, it is said that he has taken cognizance of the offence. But where he has simply forwarded the case to the police ordering an investigation under Section 156 (3) he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence. If magistrate finds after perusal of complaint, that there is no sufficient ground for taking cognizance, he has power to dismiss the same.
In present case Magistrate as well Revisional Courts have held that there was nothing in complaint to proceed with complaint. Cognizance is taken at the initial stage when the Magistrate peruses the complaint with a view to ascertain whether the commission of any offence is disclosed. The issuance of process is at a later stage when after considering the material placed before it, the Court decides to proceed against the offenders against whom a prima facie case is made out. The law cited by counsel for petition is not all applicable, because facts of those cases are totally different.
In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is devoid of merit. Hence, it is dismissed.