Magistrate can drop proceedings if complaint lacks specific allegations against accused

KM MATHEW Versus STATE OF KERALA

KM MATHEW Versus STATE OF KERALA - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 370 (SC), 1992 AIR 2206, 1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 364, 1992 (1) SCC 217 Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Magistrate to drop proceedings against an accused in a summons-case after process is issued.

The Supreme Court of India granted special leave to address the issue concerning the power of a Magistrate to drop proceedings against an accused in a summons-case after process is issued. The case involved the Chief Editor of a newspaper who was accused of publishing a news item with the intent to ridicule and defame the complainant, an advocate. The Magistrate dropped the proceedings against the Chief Editor before recording evidence, based on the argument that the complainant did not specifically implicate the Chief Editor in the publication process. The High Court, in revision, set aside the Magistrate's order, emphasizing the procedural requirements of a summons-case trial. The High Court directed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial of all accused, stating that the question of conviction or acquittal arises only after recording evidence of the parties.

The Supreme Court analyzed the procedural aspects of a summons-case trial in detail. It highlighted that under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process, is obligated to proceed with the trial when the accused enters appearance. The Court noted that the High Court's decision was solely based on procedural grounds, disregarding the substance of the complaint against the Chief Editor. The Court emphasized that the power to drop proceedings against an accused lies with the Magistrate, as indicated in Section 204 of the Code. The Court clarified that if the complaint does not involve the accused in the commission of the crime, the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to proceed against the accused.

The Supreme Court further explained that the Magistrate has the discretion to drop proceedings if, upon reconsideration of the complaint, it is found that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. The Court emphasized that the order issuing the process is interim and subject to variation or recall. In the present case, the complaint lacked specific allegations against the Chief Editor, except for a general and vague motive. The Court highlighted that the presumption under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, does not apply to a person merely named as the Chief Editor, as the Act specifies the Editor for raising such presumption.

The Supreme Court concluded that for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence against the Chief Editor, positive averments in the complaint regarding the knowledge of the objectionable content were necessary. Since the complaint did not contain such allegations, the Magistrate was justified in dropping the proceedings against the Chief Editor. The Court deemed the High Court's decision untenable and allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order.