Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nitin Shivdas Satpute, a librarian at Shri Gadge Maharaj Mahavidyalaya, Murtizapur, filed a criminal complaint against the respondent, Santosh Madhavrao Thakre, the principal of the same college. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was habitual of using abusive and filthy language against him and other staff members. On 8 November 2020, the petitioner and five other staff members complained to the Vice Chancellor of Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University about the respondent's behavior. Annoyed by this complaint, the respondent called the petitioner to his chamber on 11 November 2020 at 4:00 p.m., where a peon, Prakash Pawar, was also present. The respondent used abusive language and threatened the petitioner, stating, "you people have lodged complaint to the Vice Chancellor. I am capable of committing four murders and hence the Petitioner should be cautious." He also made a derogatory remark about the petitioner's wife. On 13 November 2020, the petitioner and others lodged a report with the police, which was registered on 21 November 2020 as NCR No. 455/2020 under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur, issued process against the respondent on 4 February 2022. The respondent challenged this order in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, who set aside the order on 10 August 2022, holding that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case. The petitioner then filed a criminal writ petition in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court examined the complaint and found that the allegations, if taken at face value, clearly disclosed offences under Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC. The court noted that the respondent's threat to commit murder and the abusive language were sufficient to constitute a prima facie case. The High Court held that the revisional court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence at the stage of process issuance, as the Magistrate's order was not perverse or illegal. The court allowed the petition, set aside the Sessions Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order issuing process against the respondent. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Process Issuance - Prima Facie Case - Sections 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court examined whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed a prima facie case for issuance of process. The Magistrate had issued process based on the complaint alleging that the respondent used abusive language and threatened to commit murder. The Sessions Court set aside the order, but the High Court held that the allegations, if taken at face value, constituted offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, and the Magistrate's order was justified. (Paras 2-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Interference with Magistrate's Order - Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The revisional court's power to interfere with an order issuing process is limited. The Sessions Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence at the stage of process issuance. The High Court restored the Magistrate's order, holding that the revisional court should not substitute its view unless the order is perverse or illegal. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court was justified in setting aside the Magistrate's order issuing process against the respondent for offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola dated 10/8/2022, and restored the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur dated 4/2/2022 issuing process against the respondent. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- process issuance
- criminal intimidation
- intentional insult
- abuse of process
- inherent powers
