Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by M. H. Patel, the original complainant, against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali, which remanded the matter for fresh verification of the complaint. The complainant had filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, alleging offences under Sections 182, 211, 500 read with 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate recorded verification of the complainant on 26/03/2008 and called for a report under Section 202 CrPC. The Malad Police submitted a report on 15/05/2008 stating that no cognizable offence was disclosed. Subsequently, the Magistrate passed two orders: first, on 22/01/2010, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 CrPC based on the police report; second, on 18/06/2011, issuing process for the offence under Section 500 read with 34 IPC against both accused. Two revisions were filed before the Additional Sessions Judge: one by the complainant against the dismissal order, and one by the accused against the process order. The revisional court allowed the accused's revision and remanded the matter for fresh verification, holding that the verification was not properly recorded. The complainant challenged this remand order in the High Court. The High Court held that the rule of de novo trial is not applicable to verification recording, and the order of remand was improper. The court noted that the verification was already recorded and the Magistrate had applied his mind. The High Court set aside the remand order and restored the order issuing process against the accused. The revision against the deceased accused (Respondent No. 1) was dismissed as abated.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - De Novo Trial - Verification Recording - Rule of de novo trial is not applicable to verification recording; the order of remand was improper - The court held that the revisional court erred in remanding the matter for fresh verification without considering that the verification was already recorded and the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 CrPC, and later process was issued under Section 204 CrPC - The High Court set aside the remand order and restored the order issuing process (Paras 1, 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rule of de novo trial is applicable to verification recorded and whether the order of remand is proper or not.
Final Decision
The revision application is partly allowed. The order of remand passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. The order issuing process against Respondent No. 2 (Narendra Ramgopal Seksaria) is restored. The revision against Respondent No. 1 (deceased) is dismissed as abated.
Law Points
- Rule of de novo trial not applicable to verification recording
- Order of remand improper
- Section 202 CrPC report
- Section 203 CrPC dismissal
- Section 204 CrPC process issuance
- Section 500 IPC defamation
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (04) 76
REVISION APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2017
Mr. M. H. Patel (Applicant in-person), Mr. Prithviraj S. Gole i/by Ms. Divya A. Pawar Patil (for Respondent No. 2), Mr. A. D. Kamkhedkar (APP for Respondent-State)
Virendra Babubhai Dalal (deceased), Narendra Ramgopal Seksaria, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against order of Additional Sessions Judge remanding matter for fresh verification in a private complaint for defamation and other offences.
Remedy Sought
The applicant (original complainant) sought setting aside of the remand order and restoration of the order issuing process against the accused.
Filing Reason
The revisional court had set aside the order issuing process and remanded the matter for fresh verification, which the applicant challenged as improper.
Previous Decisions
The trial Magistrate had initially dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC on 22/01/2010, but later issued process under Section 500 read with 34 IPC on 18/06/2011. The Additional Sessions Judge, in revision, set aside the process order and remanded for fresh verification.
Issues
Whether the rule of de novo trial is applicable to verification recording?
Whether the order of remand by the revisional court was proper?
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the verification was already recorded and the Magistrate had applied his mind, so remand for fresh verification was unnecessary.
The respondent argued that the verification was not properly recorded and the revisional court correctly remanded the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The rule of de novo trial is not applicable to verification recording under Section 200 CrPC. The revisional court erred in remanding the matter for fresh verification when the verification was already recorded and the Magistrate had applied his mind. The order of remand was improper and is set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
The issue involved in this revision is whether 'the rule of denovo trial is applicable to verification recorded and whether the order of remand is proper or not'.
In view of that revision stands dismissed against Respondent No. 1.
The order of remand passed by the revisional court is set aside. The order issuing process is restored.
Procedural History
The complainant filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, on 26/03/2008. The Magistrate recorded verification and called for a police report under Section 202 CrPC. On 22/01/2010, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. On 18/06/2011, the Magistrate issued process under Section 500 read with 34 IPC. Two revisions were filed: one by the complainant against dismissal, and one by the accused against process. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the accused's revision and remanded the matter for fresh verification. The complainant filed the present revision in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 182, 211, 500, 34, 120-B
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 202, 203, 204
