SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 11879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
L. S. Pirzada, J
Jigarbhai Rameshbhai Panchal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 984 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Virat G Popat
For the Respondents: Sumit B Sikarwar, Jainish P Shah, Public Prosecutor

A Magistrate is empowered to dismiss a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. upon finding no sufficient ground for proceeding, even without formal examination on oath, if the investigation or material available sufficiently demonstrates the absence of a prima facie case or establishes that the matter is purely civil in nature.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 200, 202, 203, 210, 397, 401 - Dismissal of complaint under Section 203 - Requirement of examination of complainant on oath - Magistrate invoked Section 210 and called for police report - Report indicated no offence made out - Trial Court dismissed complaint without examining complainant on oath - Challenge to dismissal on procedural grounds - Whether mandatory to record statement on oath before dismissal - Held, when investigation under Section 210 is invoked and Magistrate finds no substance or prima facie case, dismissal under Section 203 is valid - Civil nature of dispute also noted - Revision application rejected.

Facts of the case:
Private complaint filed alleging forgery and offences under IPC sections. Magistrate stayed complaint under Section 210, seeking police report. Upon police report stating no offence, Magistrate dismissed complaint under Section 203 without prior verification/examination of complainant on oath. Petitioner challenged the dismissal arguing non-compliance with procedural requirements of Chapter XV.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Trial Court did not err, as the report confirmed the absence of any cognizable offence. The findings indicated a civil dispute, and the procedure adopted was found to be just and proper, warranting no interference.

Issues: Whether the Magistrate is bound to examine the complainant under Section 200 even after receiving a police report under Section 210, and whether the impugned dismissal is vitiated by lack of oath examination.

Ratio Decidendi: If the material on record, including the police report, fails to disclose any prima facie offence, the Magistrate is not mechanically bound to conduct an evidentiary hearing if the dispute is clearly civil or lacks merit at the threshold under Section 203. Result : Criminal Revision Application rejected; Trial Court order confirmed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the background of the revision application and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding the mandatory requirement of examining the complainant under chapter xv. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. analysis of section 200-203 procedure in light of police investigation reports. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. final confirmation that non-examination on oath is not fatal when no prima facie case exists. (Para 18 , 19)

CAV JUDGMENT

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service for Rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. The present revision application has been preferred by the present applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short “Cr.PC”) directing against the order passed by the learned 5th Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Inquiry No.174 of 2022 passing an order below Exh.1 dismissing the complaint of the original complainant under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C on 28.05.2024.

3. By consent of the learned advocate for respective parties, the present revision application has been taken for final hearing and disposal of the revision application.

4. The short facts to the present revision application is that one private complaint came to be filed by the present petitioner – original complainant – accused nos.1, 2 and 3, the present respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 and 120(B) of the IPC and it was prayed before the learned Magistrate Court to send the complaint to the concerned police station for the investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The said complaint came to be filed before the learned Trial Court on 15.07.2022. The allegation made in the private complaint is that the complainant, at the relevant point of time, was not in India and the accused persons have forged partnership deed and reduced the percentage of the partnership and based on the same, an account was opened in collusion with the officer of the ICICI bank and the account which is opened with the ICICI Bank and the amount of sale proceeded was received in the said Bank account, was opened by forging signature and other relevant material including account opening form, etc and the present applicant was not in India when such account was opened and signature has been forged and after he arrived and from the passport, it was established at the relevant time that he was not in India when the account with the ICICI Bank was opened and by making such type of allegation, private complaint came to be filed. The accused persons have committed the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 and 120-B of the IPC as prayed to send the complainant for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

5. After filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate Court has passed an order and perused the complaint, it was in the inquiry register that the complaint was posted for 26.07.2022 for the verification of the complainant and subsequently, the learned Magistrate has invoked the power under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C as from the complaint, it was disclosed that the present complainant has also given a complaint before Adalaj Police Station on 30.06.2022, hence, with the learned Magistrate has stayed with this private complaint under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C and directed the concerned police to submit the report of the investigation within 30 days and after the report has been submitted by the concerned police, no offence has been made out. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has issued the notice to the complainant and the original complainant has objected to the report submitted by the Investigating Officer and subsequently, after considering the report submitted by the investigation agency and considering the submission of the original complainant, the learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the complaint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top