Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan of the Sikkim HC quashed a criminal complaint filed against the petitioners with punishable offences charged under the Sections 405, 420, 441 read along with Section 120-B of the IPC. The warrants issued in the respective regards by the Magistrate were also deemed quashed.
In the present matter, the parties to the case were involved in a dispute of the landlord-tenant nature. The landlord filed a complaint against the petitioners and the Magistrate, after considering the matter issued process against the petitioners. The petitioners aggrieved by this filed an instant petition with the admitted fact that in starting a proceeding, the Magistrate had exceeded his territorial authorities.
The Sikkim HC in this case dismissed the claims laid under Chapter 15 of the CrPC and cited the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd. 2019 SCC SC 682 wherein the Sc decreed that under the present clauses of the amendment of Sub Section (1) to section 202 of CrPC , it was made mandatory for the Magistrate while exercising powers beyond its jurisdiction, the Magistrate was required to inquire into the matter personally. According to the SC, the Magistrate was required to reflect the course of action taken by him. The Supreme Court after referring to numerous previous cases and their judgments held that summons may be issued if the allegations in the complaint would show that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.
However in this matter, it was evident that the Magistrate had not acted according to the provisions laid under Section 202 of the CrPC. In the present case it was thus held that the Magistrate had failed in exercising her discretion in a manner that was necessary by law. Apart from that, it was also noted that the allegations levied lacked substantial substance fo the Court to initiate a criminal proceeding.