Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Sau. Shailja w/o Ambadas Dhanvijay and Ambadas s/o Balakdas Dhanvijay, challenged three orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, in Regular Criminal Case No. 186/13, dated 26.9.2013, 28.2.2014, and 19.7.2014. The non-applicant, Sau. Meerabai Balakdas Dhanvijay, had filed a criminal complaint against the applicants alleging, among other offences, an offence punishable under Section 315 of the Indian Penal Code, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Magistrate issued process against the applicants and committed the case to the Sessions Court without conducting the mandatory inquiry required under proviso (a) to Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicants contended that this failure vitiated the proceedings. The respondent's counsel conceded the legal position. The High Court held that when an offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate must conduct an inquiry himself under Section 202(1)(a) CrPC and cannot delegate it to a police investigation. As the Magistrate failed to do so, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Mandatory Inquiry under Section 202(1)(a) CrPC - Offence Exclusively Triable by Sessions Court - Where the complaint discloses an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate is required to conduct an inquiry himself under proviso (a) to Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and cannot substitute it by a direction for investigation - Failure to do so vitiates the orders of issuance of process and committal to Sessions (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate's failure to conduct a mandatory inquiry under proviso (a) to Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before issuing process for an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, vitiates the orders of issuance of process and committal to Sessions.
Final Decision
The impugned orders dated 26.9.2013, 28.2.2014, and 19.7.2014 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after conducting the mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1)(a) CrPC.
Law Points
- Mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1)(a) CrPC
- Offence exclusively triable by Sessions Court
- Magistrate cannot delegate inquiry to police investigation
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 98
Criminal Application (apl) No. 582 of 2014
Mr. U.K. Bisen for the Applicants, Mr. Anil Kumar for Non-applicant
Sau. Shailja w/o Ambadas Dhanvijay and Ambadas s/o Balakdas Dhanvijay
Sau. Meerabai Balakdas Dhanvijay
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application challenging orders of issuance of process and committal to Sessions Court in a private complaint.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of orders dated 26.9.2013, 28.2.2014, and 19.7.2014 passed by JMFC, Chandrapur in Regular Criminal Case No. 186/13.
Filing Reason
The Magistrate failed to conduct mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1)(a) CrPC before issuing process for an offence exclusively triable by Sessions Court.
Previous Decisions
The JMFC, Chandrapur issued process against the applicants and committed the case to the Court of Sessions without conducting the required inquiry.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate's failure to conduct a mandatory inquiry under proviso (a) to Section 202(1) CrPC before issuing process for an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions vitiates the orders of issuance of process and committal to Sessions.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued that the mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1)(a) CrPC was not conducted, vitiating the process and committal orders.
Respondent conceded the legal position that the Magistrate must conduct the inquiry himself for offences exclusively triable by Sessions Court.
Ratio Decidendi
When a complaint discloses an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate is required under proviso (a) to Section 202(1) CrPC to conduct an inquiry himself and cannot substitute it by a direction for investigation. Failure to do so vitiates the orders of issuance of process and committal.
Judgment Excerpts
the mandatory enquiry as contemplated under proviso (a) to Section 202(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure has not been conducted by the Magistrate and, therefore, the orders of issuance of process to the applicants as well as committing the criminal complaint case to the Court of Sessions have been vitiated in law.
Enquiry contemplated under Section 202(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be conducted by the learned Magistrate himself and it cannot be substituted by a direction for investigation.
Procedural History
The non-applicant filed a criminal complaint before JMFC, Chandrapur, which was registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 186/13. The Magistrate passed orders on 26.9.2013, 28.2.2014, and 19.7.2014 issuing process against the applicants and committing the case to the Court of Sessions. The applicants challenged these orders by filing Criminal Application No. 582 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 202(1), 202(1)(a)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 315
