TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court restores Magistrate's order in criminal case, criticizes High Court interference</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Magistrate's order issuing process against respondents 1 ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to refer the matter to the police for further inquiry.2. High Court's interference with the Magistrate's order issuing process.3. Scope and ambit of inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Summary:1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to Refer the Matter to the Police for Further Inquiry:The appellant filed a complaint before the Magistrate at Gokak alleging that respondents 1 & 2 had abetted the murder of her son. The Magistrate initially decided to hold an inquiry himself and recorded evidence. However, the successor Magistrate referred the matter to the Superintendent of Police for further inquiry. The High Court quashed this referral, stating that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to stop his inquiry and refer the matter to the police afresh once he had decided to hold the inquiry himself.2. High Court's Interference with the Magistrate's Order Issuing Process:The High Court quashed the Magistrate's order issuing process against respondents 1 & 2, reasoning that the Magistrate's order was perverse and politically motivated. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the merits of the case and considering documents filed by the respondents, which were not part of the complaint or evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Magistrate's discretion in issuing process should not be substituted by the High Court's discretion.3. Scope and Ambit of Inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The Supreme Court reiterated that the scope of inquiry u/s 202 is limited to ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint based on the materials placed by the complainant. The accused has no locus standi in such proceedings, and the Magistrate is not to consider any defense or materials produced by the accused. The Supreme Court cited previous decisions to underline that the inquiry is not a trial and should not be converted into one. The Magistrate's role is to determine whether there is a prima facie case for issuing process, not to adjudicate on the merits of the case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order issuing process against respondents 1 & 2. The Court directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial of the original case, vacating the stay previously granted. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the limited scope of inquiry u/s 202 and the improper interference by the High Court in the Magistrate's discretion.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
