Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANJANA PRAKASH, J.
Jai Prakash Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar & ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1043 of 2011
Decided on: 8.8.2012
Criminal Procedure Code - Procedure for Dealing with Complaints - Sections 190, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 156(3) - The court analyzed the procedure for dealing with complaints under the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing the magistrate's discretion to either inquire into the allegations or refer the matter to the police for investigation. The court also discussed the limitations on the magistrate's cognizance-taking powers and the factors the magistrate must consider before proceeding with a complaint. The court highlighted the distinction between the act of taking cognizance and the subsequent course of action, emphasizing the need for a mindful and conscious exercise of judicial powers. The judgment also referenced relevant legal provisions and previous court decisions to support its analysis.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ application seeking declaration that the procedure adopted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in dealing with a complaint case was illegal. The complaint alleged that a judicial officer had made defamatory remarks against the petitioner, and the magistrate had postponed the examination of the complainant and the witnesses on the question of maintainability. The petitioner argued that the magistrate was bound to proceed under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and could not refuse to take cognizance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the magistrate had not taken cognizance on the date he had postponed the examination of the complainant and the witnesses. The court also held that the magistrate rightly postponed the examination of the complainant upon finding a senior judicial officer accused as the main accused, as per the provisions of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court dismissed the application and set aside the proceeding of the complaint case against the main accused, stating that no offence was made out in the facts of the case.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the magistrate's discretion to proceed with a complaint, the limitations on the magistrate's cognizance-taking powers, and the application of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code in cases involving senior judicial officers accused of offences committed in the discharge of their official duties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the magistrate's powers and limitations under the Criminal Procedure Code, the distinction between taking cognizance and the subsequent course of action, and the application of Section 197 in cases involving senior judicial officers accused of offences committed in the discharge of their official duties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application and set aside the proceeding of the complaint case against the main accused, stating that no offence was made out in the facts of the case. The court clarified that the decision did not determine the complicity of the other accused and allowed the court to proceed against them in accordance with the law without prejudice.
The present writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for declaration that the procedure adopted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in dealing with Complaint Case No.1838-C of 2011 was illegal and thus, the order dated 27.07.2011 is fit to be set aside.
2. The Petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
(i) Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, be commanded to proceed under the provision of Chapter XV or XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the order dated 12.07.2011 by which the learned Magistrate applied his mind on the complaint petition filed by the Complainant-Petitioner and put the matter for further proceeding as per prescribed procedure of the Code.
(ii) Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, be commanded to proceed with the complaint case as per the normal rules and prescribed procedure defined under Chapter XV and XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(iii) Learned Magistrate be restrained from passing any order on the point of maintainability of the complaint petition as the case was never put for hearing on the point of maintainability rather it talks about further proceeding in the matter and not otherwise.
(iv) Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, be directed to proceed with the examination and the enquiry of the case in a well defined manner as prescribed in the Code without being prejudiced by the position and status of the accused person/persons.
(v) Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, be directed to follow the procedure as laid down in Criminal Procedure Code in dealing with such complaint so as to give it the logical conclusion.
(vi) Any other relief/reliefs be granted to the Petitioner to which he is legally entitled to.
3. To be able to appreciate the legal issues involved it would be essential to place in some detail the contents of the written complaint filed in the Court below. The Complainant submitted that he had a long standing experience at the Bar of 32 years and had got various distinctions in his profession. He had been elected President and General Secretary of the District Bar Association, Patna, as well as Member of the Bihar State Bar Council and had been an Office Bearer of various Associations. He had been also awarded by the district administration for his distinctive work.
4. He complained that on 07.03.2011, an order was passed by accused no.1, Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, the then Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court No.5, Patna, in Sessions Trial No.1148 of 2005 containing “callous unfounded and unwarranted imputation” against the Complainant which had been widely circulated in daily newspaper by accused nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in connivance with Accused No.1. He alleged that Accused No.1 while occupying the post of a Judicial Officer had got it circulated in order to project the Complainant in bad light to settle personal scores with him. It was done with the sole intention to defame the Complainant and tarnish his image and lower down his reputation in the estimation of all concerned.
5. On 18.04.2011, the Complainant allegedly received a communication issued under the hand of Accused No.1 along with a copy of the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.5, Patna, in connection with Sessions Trial No.1148 of 2005 arising out of Patna City Chowk P.S. Case No.69 of 2002. The said order allegedly comprised of defamatory insinuation against the Complainant and revealed his intention towards the Complainant. After perusal of the order dated 07.03.2011, he was shocked to see the defamatory allegations that had been raised against the Complainant by the Accused No.1 while dealing with a sensational murder trial and he had allegedly travelled beyond the periphery of his jurisdiction and had not acted judicially, knowing fully well that he was acting beyond the power vested in him while acting and purporting to act in discharge of his judicial function. It was alleg
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
