Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Narendra Prasad P., filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenging the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Principal I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in P.C.R.No.1918/2018, whereby the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The petitioner had filed a private complaint alleging that the respondents had committed offences of forgery, fabrication of documents, and perjury in connection with a civil suit O.S.No.138/2010 pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru. The civil suit pertained to a declaration of title over land bearing Sy.No.8/2, Martikhyathanahalli, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, measuring 20 guntas. The petitioner claimed to be the legal heir of deceased M. Puttegowda, while respondent No.1 claimed to be the foster daughter of the deceased and alleged that a will was executed in her favour. The petitioner contended that the will and other documents produced by the respondents were forged. The Magistrate, without examining the complainant or his witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C., dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature and the complaint was filed to pressurize the respondents. The High Court held that the dismissal was premature as the Magistrate had not applied judicial mind and had not recorded reasons after examining the complainant. The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and restored the complaint to the file of the Magistrate with a direction to proceed in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Complaint Dismissal - Section 203 Cr.P.C. - Examination of Complainant - The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. without examining the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C. - Held that such dismissal is premature and not sustainable in law, as the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and record reasons after examination (Paras 5-8). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Maintainability - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. - A revision petition lies against an order dismissing a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. - The High Court can interfere if the order is illegal or improper (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. without examining the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is sustainable in law?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, set aside the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Principal I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in P.C.R.No.1918/2018, and restored the complaint to the file of the Magistrate with a direction to proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Dismissal of complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is premature without examination of complainant and witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
- Magistrate must apply judicial mind and record reasons for dismissal
- Revision petition maintainable against order of dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
