Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nagaraja Rao C.H., filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, in C.C. No.90/2014. The petitioner was the complainant in a private complaint alleging that the accused persons committed offences including robbery, kidnapping for ransom, and attempt to murder. The Magistrate took cognizance of some offences but failed to take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 397, 364A, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner contended that the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant and witnesses clearly disclosed the commission of these serious offences, and the Magistrate erred in not applying his mind to the same. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the Magistrate had discretion and the order was correct. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Magistrate is duty-bound to apply judicial mind to the complaint and the evidence led. If the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate must take cognizance. In this case, the complaint and sworn statements clearly disclosed offences under Sections 397, 364A, and 307 IPC, and the Magistrate's failure to take cognizance was illegal. The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order to the extent it did not take cognizance of those offences, and remitted the matter back to the Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after hearing both sides.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Cognizance of Offences - Magistrate's Duty - Sections 190, 200, 202 Cr.P.C. - The Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the complaint and the evidence led, and if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate is bound to take cognizance. Failure to take cognizance of serious offences like Sections 397, 364A, 307 IPC when the complaint and sworn statement disclose such offences amounts to illegality. (Paras 1-10) B) Indian Penal Code - Robbery, Kidnapping, Attempt to Murder - Sections 397, 364A, 307 IPC - The complaint and sworn statement of the complainant and witnesses disclosed that the accused persons committed robbery, kidnapped the complainant's son for ransom, and attempted to murder him. The Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance of these offences. (Paras 4-9) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. - The High Court in revision can set aside an order of the Magistrate which is illegal or improper. The impugned order not taking cognizance of the said offences is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, erred in not taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 397, 364A and 307 of IPC against the accused while taking cognizance of other offences in C.C. No.90/2014.
Final Decision
The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi in C.C. No.90/2014, insofar as it did not take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 397, 364A and 307 of IPC, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after hearing both sides.
Law Points
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Section 397
- Section 401
- Section 190
- Section 200
- Section 202
- Cognizance of Offences
- Private Complaint
- Magistrate's Duty to Apply Mind
- Serious Offences
- IPC Sections 397
- 364A
- 307
