The duty of the Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence when the ingredients of the alleged offence are established based on the statements recorded under section 200 and 202 of Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT : 

The applicant - accused has directed this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the Order dated 12-1-2010 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Katni in Criminal Revision No. 113/09 dismissing his revision by affirming the order dated 27-9-2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Katni in Criminal Complaint Case No. 106/06 taking cognizance against the applicant for the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the respondent herein filed a private complaint against the applicant and other members of his family in the trial Court for the offence under sections 498-A, 294, 506-B and 323 of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on dated 30-11-2006, such Court, vide order dated 30-11-2006 with respect of the facts stated in the complaint requisitioned an inquiry report through P. S. Katni. Subsequently on 11-7-2007 recorded the statements of the respondent-complainant under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code and on dated 21-8-2007 and 21-10-2008 the statements of her witnesses under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter in view of such statements, vide order dated 29-7-2009 took the cognizance only against the applicant for the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to that the applicant was summoned and on his appearance he was released on bail, vide order dated 3-8-2009. Subsequent to that the applicant challenged the aforesaid order dated 29-7-2009, taking the cognizance of the offence against him before the subordinate revisional Court. After extending the opportunity of hearing to the parties, on consideration by affirming the order of the trial Court such revision was dismissed by the impugned order, on which the applicant has come to this Court with this petition.

3. Shri R. K. Nanhoriya, learned appearing counsel of the applicant after taking me through proceeding of the trial Court said that at the initial stage without compliance the provision of sections 200 and 202 of Criminal Procedure Code, the trial Court called the inquiry report from the Police Station for which there is no provision under the Criminal Procedure Code. In the lack of any such provision if the complaint was entertained by the trial Court and such enquiry report was called from the Police Station, then the procedure adopted by the trial Court was ab initio void and in such premises at any subsequent stage the trial Court did not have any authority to proceed with the matter in accordance with the provision of sections 200 and 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. In continuation he said if the complaint was entertained contrary to the provision of Criminal Procedure Code, then its every subsequent proceeding being ab initio void is not sustainable and prayed for quashment of the entire proceeding and the trial of the aforesaid criminal case by admitting and allowing this petition. He also placed his reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Mohd. Yousuf vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and another, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 627 and of this Court, in the matter of Dr. Ghanshyam Asrani and others vs. The State of M. P. and another, vide order dated 28-2-2008 in M.Cr.C. No. 10343/07.

4. Having heard the counsel after perusing the entire order sheet of the trial Court along with the impugned order of the Revisional Court and other papers placed on record, I am of the considered view that Revisional Court has not committed any error in affirming the order of the trial Court taking cognizance for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant. The order of the trial Court dated 29-7-2009 has been passed after taking into consideration the statement of the respondent-prosecutrix recorded under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code and also the statements of her witnesses namely Munni Soni and Mathura Prasad recorded under section 202 o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document