Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijitha, was initially named as an accused in Crime No.318 of 2010 along with her husband (A1) for alleged offences including attempt to murder and criminal intimidation. The de facto complainant, her brother-in-law, alleged that on 08.08.2010, the accused entered his property and attacked him with a spade, causing injuries. However, during investigation, the police found the allegations against the petitioner to be exaggerated and dropped her name from the final report, filing charge sheet only against A1 (second respondent). The case was taken on file as C.C.No.54 of 2011. Subsequently, when the de facto complainant was examined as PW1, he reiterated the allegations against the petitioner. The Magistrate, without ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. or treating the complaint as a protest petition, passed an order on 12.02.2021 taking cognizance against the petitioner and issuing summons. The petitioner challenged this order by way of criminal revision. The High Court held that once the police file a final report dropping a person, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance against that person without following the procedure under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation or without treating the complaint as a protest petition and proceeding under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The court found that the Magistrate had not followed any of these procedures and therefore the order was illegal. The revision petition was allowed, and the order taking cognizance was set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Final Report - Dropping of Accused - Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. - Once the police file a final report dropping a person as accused, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance against that person without ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. or without treating the complaint as a protest petition and following the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. - Held that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner was illegal and set aside (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate can take cognizance against a person who was dropped by the police in the final report without ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and without following the procedure for a protest petition.
Final Decision
The revision petition is allowed. The order passed in Crl.M.P.No.305 of 2021 in C.C.No.54 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ramanathapuram, dated 12.02.2021, is set aside.
Law Points
- Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
- further investigation
- cognizance
- final report
- protest petition
- summoning accused
Case Details
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.248 of 2021
Mr.Mahaboob Athiff for Mr.D.Balamurugapandi, Mr.A.Albert James, Mr.R.Navaneetha Raja
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Bazzar Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District and Ragupathi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioner who was dropped from the final report.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 12.02.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.305 of 2021 in C.C.No.54 of 2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ramanathapuram, taking cognizance against her.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was initially an accused in Crime No.318 of 2010 but was dropped by the police in the final report. The Magistrate subsequently took cognizance against her based on the de facto complainant's testimony without ordering further investigation or treating it as a protest petition.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ramanathapuram, passed an order on 12.02.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.305 of 2021 taking cognizance against the petitioner and issuing summons.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate can take cognizance against a person dropped by the police in the final report without ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. or without treating the complaint as a protest petition and following the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance against her without ordering further investigation or treating the de facto complainant's statement as a protest petition.
The respondent/State supported the Magistrate's order.
Ratio Decidendi
Once the police file a final report dropping a person as accused, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance against that person without ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. or without treating the complaint as a protest petition and following the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
Judgment Excerpts
Once the police files a final report dropping a person as accused, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance against that person without ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. or without treating the complaint as a protest petition and following the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
Procedural History
FIR registered in Crime No.318 of 2010; police filed final report dropping petitioner; case taken on file as C.C.No.54 of 2011 against A1 only; de facto complainant examined as PW1; Magistrate passed order on 12.02.2021 taking cognizance against petitioner; petitioner filed Crl.R.C.(MD) No.248 of 2021 before Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; High Court allowed revision on 28.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 173(8), 200, 202, 397, 401
