2015 (2) TMI 1421 - SC - Indian Laws

SC restores summons in dowry harassment case, says Magistrate need only find prima facie offence at cognizance stage

SC held that the Magistrate rightly took cognizance and summoned respondent nos.1-8 on the complainant's allegations of dowry-related torture and ... Exercise of revisional jurisdiction and inherent/extraordinary powers, in setting aside the Magistrate's summoning order - Alleged torture and harassment inflicted by respondent nos.1 to 8 for dowry as well as for giving birth to a girl child - HELD THAT:- Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. Hence at the stage of framing of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of charge against that particular accused - It is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial. In the present case, on going through the order of the learned Magistrate, we are satisfied that the same suffers from no illegality. The specific case of the appellant that FIR was registered on an undated photocopy of a petition attributed to the appellant but not bearing her original signature could not have been rejected by the learned Magistrate at the present stage especially in view of the report of investigation by the CID which was also called for and there being no dispute that the FIR No.73/2002 was registered only on the basis of a photocopy on which the signature is not in original and hence in our considered view the Hon’ble High Court grossly erred in exercise of its jurisdiction by directing the appellant/complainant to lead further evidence and produce the original documents to show forgery. If the FIR is admittedly on the basis of only a photocopy of a document allegedly brought into existence by the accused persons, the High Court erred in directing the appellant to produce the original and get the signatures compared - the High Court fell into error of evaluating the merits of the defence case and other submissions advanced on behalf of the accused which were not appropriate for consideration at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing summons. The judgment and order under appeal passed by the High Court is set aside - Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning on a complaint alleging offences under the Penal Code, the Magistrate is required to evaluate the defence, assess sufficiency of evidence for conviction, or demand production of original documents and expert opinion on alleged forgery. 1.2 Whether the revisional court and the High Court were justified, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and inherent/extraordinary powers, in setting aside the Magistrate's summoning order by entering into merits of the defence and directing the complainant to adduce further evidence and produce original documents at the pre-summoning stage. 1.3 Whether the materials considered by the Magistrate - including the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation, and CID investigation record - disclosed a prima facie case sufficient to sustain the summoning of all accused for trial. 1.4 Whether the principles governing quashing of proceedings on grounds of mala fides, abuse of process, or absence of any offence justified interference with the complaint or the summoning order in the present facts. 1.5 Consequential directions as to restoration of the summoning order and grant of bail to certain accused. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1 Scope of Magistrate's inquiry at the stage of cognizance and summoning 2.1.1 Legal framework (as discussed) The Court reiterated the settled position that at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process on a complaint, the Magistrate's task is to apply judicial mind to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists for summoning the accused. Cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. Questions of discharge and sufficiency of material for conviction arise at a later stage, i.e., at framing of charge. 2.1.2 Interpretation and reasoning The Court held that at the summoning stage the Magistrate is: (a) Not required to consider the defence version or defence materials or arguments; (b) Not required to evaluate the merits, weight or ultimate sufficiency of the complainant's evidence; (c) Required only to see whether, on the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, and documents relied upon, a prima facie case is made out. The Court emphasized that the exercise of determining whether the materials will lead to conviction is impermissible at this stage. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the court does not insist on material sufficient for conviction; discharge can be ordered only if the material is wholly insufficient for trial, and even strong suspicion is enough to justify framing of charge. 2.1.3 Conclusions The Court concluded that the Magistrate, in issuing summons after considering the complaint, the complainant's statement, and the CID investigation record, committed no error and acted within the legally prescribed limits of inquiry at the cognizance/summoning stage. 2.2 Validity of the Magistrate's summoning order and adequacy of prima facie material 2.2.1 Interpretation and reasoning The complaint alleged that an undated letter earlier withdrawn by the complainant was altered and used to generate a photocopy complaint, attributed to her but without her original signature, and that, at the instance of accused persons and certain police officials, an FIR was fraudulently registered on that photocopy to facilitate anticipatory bail and dilute the complainant's genuine proceedings. The Magistrate had: (a) Recorded the complainant's statement on solemn affirmation; (b) Called for and perused the CID investigation record relating to the impugned FIR; (c) Relied on these materials in a speaking order to find a prima facie case and issue summons against all accused. The Court noted that it was undisputed that the impugned FIR had been registered on the basis of only a photocopy, not bearing the complainant's original signature. The complainant's specific case that the document was brought into existence by the accused and that she had no role in its registration could not be summarily rejected at this preliminary stage, especially in view of the CID report supporting her version. 2.2.2 Conclusions The Court held that: (a) The summoning order dated 02.05.2011 suffered from no illegality; (b) There existed sufficient prima facie material, including the CID investigation report, to justify issuance of process against all accused; (c) The Magistrate's recourse to the CID record and acceptance of the complainant's allegations as prima facie true was proper at the cognizance stage. 2.3 Propriety of the revisional court's and High Court's interference with the summoning order 2.3.1 Legal framework (as discussed) The Court referred to settled principles that: (a) Summoning is a serious matter and the Magistrate's order must show application of mind, but once such application is shown, superior courts must exercise caution before interfering; (b) Powers under revisional jurisdiction, inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, or extraordinary jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and in the rarest of rare cases; (c) In quashing proceedings or interfering with summoning, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of allegations or evaluate evidence as if at trial. 2.3.2 Interpretation and reasoning The Court found that the High Court (and to the extent relevant, the Sessions Court): (a) Erroneously directed the complainant to appear before the Magistrate to adduce additional evidence and to produce original documents allegedly forged, and to have them sent to an expert for signature comparison, although the FIR was admittedly founded on a photocopy lacking original signatures; (b) Evaluated the merits of the defence case and submissions advanced on behalf of accused persons, which is impermissible at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning; (c) Interfered with a speaking summoning order that was based on detailed consideration of the complaint, sworn statement, and CID report, thereby exceeding the permissible bounds of revisional and inherent jurisdiction. The Court observed that the High Court's approach effectively reversed the burden by requiring the complainant, at pre-summoning stage, to conclusively establish forgery through originals and expert evidence, despite the foundational fact that the FIR itself rested solely on a photocopy. 2.3.3 Conclusions The Court held that: (a) The High Court grossly erred in setting aside the summoning order against some accused and in remitting the matter with directions to lead further evidence and produce original documents; (b) The Sessions Court also erred in setting aside the summoning order in respect of certain accused; (c) The interference by the revisional court and the High Court was beyond their proper jurisdiction and amounted to premature evaluation of defence and evidence. 2.4 Applicability of principles on quashing for mala fides, abuse of process, or absence of offence 2.4.1 Legal framework (as discussed) The Court discussed the principles that: (a) High Courts have wide powers to quash criminal proceedings instituted with mala fide or ulterior motives or where the complaint discloses no offence; (b) However, this power must be exercised very sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the 'rarest of rare cases'; (c) Courts should not test the reliability or genuineness of allegations at the quashing stage, nor conduct a mini-trial on facts; (d) Where false/vexatious complaints are filed, remedies exist against the complainant under specified provisions of the Penal Code and through civil actions for damages, but this does not dilute the high threshold for quashing criminal proceedings at inception. 2.4.2 Interpretation and reasoning The Court distinguished authorities relied upon by the accused where: (a) Complaints were found to be counter-blasts to official actions or to be clear abuses of process, with no allegations disclosing any offence; (b) The material on record was so deficient that no tribunal could reasonably find any link between accused and alleged offence. In contrast, in the present matter: (a) The complaint contained specific, detailed allegations of fabrication and fraudulent registration of an FIR on the basis of a photocopied complaint without original signatures; (b) The CID investigation report supported the complainant's core narrative and was considered by the Magistrate; (c) The materials on record were capable of raising, at minimum, a strong suspicion against the accused, justifying continuation of proceedings. 2.4.3 Conclusions The Court held that: (a) The present case did not fall within any category warranting quashing at the threshold on grounds of mala fides or absence of offence; (b) The complaint and supporting material could not be termed manifestly malicious or devoid of any foundation; (c) The reliance by the accused on precedents dealing with clear abuses of process was misplaced; those decisions were distinguishable on facts and did not justify quashing or interference with the summoning order here. 2.5 Consequential orders: restoration of summoning order and direction on bail 2.5.1 Interpretation and reasoning Having found the Magistrate's order valid and the interference by superior courts unjustified, the Court restored the summoning order in toto. At the same time, considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the Court deemed it appropriate to secure the presence of accused nos. 6 to 9 without undue hardship, by granting them the benefit of bail on appearance, subject to reasonable conditions. 2.5.2 Conclusions (a) The appeals were allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court were set aside. (b) The revisional orders of the Sessions Court, to the extent they had set aside the summoning order in respect of accused nos. 6 to 8 and 9, were also set aside. (c) The summoning order dated 02.05.2011 issued by the Magistrate was restored in respect of all accused. (d) It was clarified that all observations made by the Court are not to prejudice either party at trial and that the criminal complaint must proceed on its own merits in accordance with law. (e) Accused nos. 6 to 9 were directed to be granted the benefit of bail by the Magistrate, if they appear within ten weeks and apply for bail, with liberty to the Magistrate to impose reasonable conditions.