2015 (3) TMI 1349 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court emphasizes Magistrate's duty in deciding to proceed against accused

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srinagar, and the High Court, remitting the case to the Magistrate for ... Complaints to Magistrate - Commencement of Proceedings before Magistrate - Sufficient ground of proceeding - Section 204(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure - Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he should dismiss the complaint, after briefly recording the reasons for doing so - How does a Magistrate, while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint, indicate his satisfaction regarding the ground for proceeding against the accused? HELD THAT:- There is no indication on the application of mind by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance and issuing process to the Appellants. The contention that the application of mind has to be inferred cannot be appreciated. The further contention that without application of mind, the process will not be issued cannot also be appreciated. Though no formal or speaking or reasoned orders are required at the stage of Section 190/204 Code of Criminal Procedure, there must be sufficient indication on the application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts constituting commission of an offence and the statements recorded Under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure so as to proceed against the offender. No doubt, the High Court is right in holding that the veracity of the allegations is a question of evidence. Question is not about veracity of the allegations; but whether the Respondents are answerable at all before the criminal court. There is no indication in that regard in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The matter is remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:1. Scope of the Magistrate's opinion on sufficient ground for proceeding to issue process to the accused.2. Requirement of application of mind by the Magistrate while taking cognizance of an offence.3. Validity of the Magistrate's order in the context of issuing process to the accused.Detailed Analysis:1. Scope of the Magistrate's Opinion on Sufficient Ground for Proceeding to Issue Process to the Accused:The judgment discusses the scope of the Magistrate's opinion under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting such offence. The Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts and statements recorded under Section 200 of the Code and determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The judgment emphasizes that this process is not mechanical and requires careful scrutiny of the evidence to ensure that a prima facie case is made out against the accused.2. Requirement of Application of Mind by the Magistrate While Taking Cognizance of an Offence:The judgment reiterates the necessity for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the allegations in the complaint and the statements recorded to form an opinion on whether the allegations constitute an offence. This is supported by various precedents, including *Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate* and *Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra*, which highlight that taking cognizance involves judicial notice of an offence and is not merely a formality. The Magistrate must be satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence.3. Validity of the Magistrate's Order in the Context of Issuing Process to the Accused:The judgment critiques the Magistrate's order dated 03.04.2007, which issued a bail warrant against the accused without indicating any application of mind. The Supreme Court held that there must be sufficient indication in the Magistrate's order that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint, along with the statements recorded, constitute an offence. The absence of such indication in the Magistrate's order led to the conclusion that the order was not valid. The High Court's decision to reject the petition was also set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of both the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srinagar, and the High Court. The case was remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with the legal principles discussed, emphasizing the importance of the Magistrate's application of mind and satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding against the accused.