An accused person has no locus standi to appear and contest a criminal case before the issue of process.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Enquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. - Scope and object - Accused person has no locus standi to appear and contest a criminal case before issue of process - Magistrate cannot permit accused to take part in proceedings or examine witnesses at his instance - Enquiry vitiated if Magistrate permits accused to intervene - Test for determining whether process is to be issued or not - Magistrate to be satisfied whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction - Magistrate to consider statements on oath of complainant and witnesses and result of investigation or enquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. - Magistrate cannot rely on extraneous material - Magistrate to record reasons for dismissing complaint - Absence of reasons may make order a nullity - Prejudice to complainant - Further enquiry can be directed against different person with reference to same offence.
Fact of the Case:

A complaint was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that the respondent had murdered a man named Nageswar Singh. The Magistrate ordered an enquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. During the enquiry, the respondent was permitted to appear through counsel and two witnesses were examined at his instance. The enquiring Magistrate submitted a report stating that no prima facie case was made out against the respondent. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the complaint without assigning any reason. The complainant filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, who directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to make further enquiry against the respondent. The respondent filed a revision application before the High Court, which allowed the application and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge. The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the respondent had no locus standi to appear and contest the criminal case before the issue of process. The Magistrate could not permit the respondent to take part in the proceedings or examine witnesses at his instance. The enquiry was vitiated by the Magistrate's permission to the respondent to intervene. The test for determining whether process was to be issued or not was whether there was "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction. The Magistrate was to consider the statements on oath of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate could not rely on extraneous material. The Magistrate was to record reasons for dismissing the complaint. The absence of reasons might make the order a nullity. Prejudice was caused to the complainant by the absence of reasons. Further enquiry could be directed against a different person with reference to the same offence.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent had locus standi to appear and contest the criminal case before the issue of process? 2. Whether the Magistrate could permit the respondent to take part in the proceedings or examine witnesses at his instance? 3. Whether the enquiry was vitiated by the Magistrate's permission to the respondent to intervene? 4. What was the test for determining whether process was to be issued or not? 5. What was the Magistrate to consider when determining whether to issue process? 6. Could the Magistrate rely on extraneous material? 7. Was the Magistrate required to record reasons for dismissing the complaint? 8. What was the effect of the absence of reasons? 9. Could further enquiry be directed against a different person with reference to the same offence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An accused person has no locus standi to appear and contest a criminal case before the issue of process. 2. A Magistrate cannot permit an accused person to take part in the proceedings or examine witnesses at his instance. 3. An enquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. is vitiated if the Magistrate permits the accused to intervene. 4. The test for determining whether process is to be issued or not is whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. 5. The Magistrate is to consider the statements on oath of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. 6. The Magistrate cannot rely on extraneous material. 7. The Magistrate is required to record reasons for dismissing the complaint. 8. The absence of reasons may make the order a nullity. 9. Further enquiry can be directed against a different person with reference to the same offence.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and directed that further enquiry be made into the complaint of the appellant against the respondent.

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta under Art 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are briefly these :

2. On December 25, 1957, one Panchanan Roy lodged a first information report at 11.00 p.m. at the police station, Bhangor, in the district of 24 Paraganas alleging that respondent No. 1 (Prokash Chandra Bose) who is the proprietor of a fishery had killed a man named Nageswar Singh who was a darwan posted at the informant s master s fishery by shooting him with a gun. After the occurrence, the assailant s party was chased but the principal culprit namely respondent No. 1 made good his escape in his own car. Two of his associates, Pannalal Saha and Sankar Ghose were arrested by the local people and produced in the police Station. on the basis of the first information report, the police undertook investigation, but ultimately they submitted a final report as late as on September 17, 1958.

3. On November 3, 1958, one Mahendra Singh who claimed to be a distant relative of the deceased darwan, but which fact is denied by the widow of the deceased-filed a complaint before Mr. C. L. Choudhry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of 24 Paraganas, Alipore against the final report of the police and asked for processes to be issued against certain other Persons on the allegation that those persons had murdered Nageswar Singh. The complaint further contained a statement to the effect that the first information report lodged by Panchanan Roy with the police on December 25, 1957 was false and that he had done so at the instance of his master Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar who as an enemy of respondent No. 1. After examination Mahendra Singh on oath and looking into the Police papers, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate asked Mr. N.M.Chowdhry, Magistrate, First Class, to hold a judicial enquiry into the allegations made by Mahendra Singh and to submit a report to him by a certain date.

4. During the pendency of the enquiry into the complaint of Mahendra Singh, Chandra Deo Singh, the nephew of the deceased filed a complaint before Mr. Choudhry on December 30, 1958 stating therein that respondent No. 1 had fired a shot at Nageswar Singh at point blank range and thereby murdered him. After examining him on oath, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate referred the matter again to Mr. N.M. Choudhry Magistrate, First Class, for enquiry and report to him by a certain date. During this enquiry respondent No. 1 was permitted by the learned Magistrate to appear through counsel. Seven witnesses were produced by the complainant Chandra Deo Singh and examined by the learned Magistrate. In addition, Pannalal Saha and Sankar Ghose who, it might be remembered are alleged to have been tie associates of respondent No. 1, were examined as court witnesses and the suggestion is that the learned Magistrate did this at the instance of the counsel for respondent No. 1.

5. On February 9, 1959 Mr. N. M. Choudhary made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the effect that a prima facie case has been made out against three persons, Upendra Neogi, Asim Mondal and Arun Mondal under S.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. on the same day, he made another report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate saying that no prima facie case made out against respondent No. 1. on the basis of the first report the Sub- Divisional Magistrate directed summonses to be issued against the three persons named in that report and commenced committal proceedings against them. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on seeing the second report dismissed the complaint of Chandra Deo Singh without assigning any reason. Chandra Deo Singh preferred an application for revision before the Sessions Judge, Alipore who, after issuing notice to respondent No. 1, and hearing his counsel, directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to make further enquiry against him. Thereupon respondent No. 1 preferred a revision application before

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1963 Supreme(SC) 11

An accused person has no locus standi to appear and contest a criminal case before the issue of process.

Cases Referred (2)