Latest News
Back
SC Held Relating To Enquiry By Magistrate Under Section 202 Of Crpc:
“Neither the statement of the complainant nor the statement of witness contained particulars as to the commission of the offence”.
It is clearly stated under sec 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 that, Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
However the Supreme Court has held in preceding judgment in Ghyanshyam kumar Sukla v. State of UP that the scope of inquiry under sec 202 is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegation made in complaint the complaint in order to make sure whether prima facie case for the issue of process has made out or not. Supreme Court Bench of Justices R.Banumathi and R Subhash Reddy reaffirmed the same.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in relation to the alleged theft of certain documents.The appellant complainant, Birla Corporation had alleged theft of fifty-four documents belonging to the appellant company by the respondents. A criminal complaint was filed by the appellant company alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 379, 403 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. Since the accused were resident beyond local jurisdiction of the court the trial court/the Magistrate fixed the matter for enquiry under Section 202 CrPC. An employee of the appellant Company by name PB Dinesh was examined. The court also took into the consideration the amendment made in 2005 in sec 202 and legislature intent behind the amendment.
Hence court came to the conclusion by relying on certain judgments, amendments and observation that the “Neither the statement of the complainant nor the statement of witness PB Dinesh) contained particulars as to the commission of the offence”.
“By perusal of the above order passed by the Magistrate, we find absolutely nothing to indicate the application of mind in taking cognizance of the offence against respondents No.1 to 16 including the respondents who are residents beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Though speaking or elaborate reasoned orders are not required at this stage, there must be sufficient indication that there was application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts constituting the commission of offence”, Court held.
Court even ruled out that the order of the magistrate cannot be sustained due to lack of particulars in complaint regarding the time and place of theft or the person who as committed theft. Thus the order of the High court was set aside.
