Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Pranesh, filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, seeking to quash an order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Criminal Revision Petition No.249/2013. The background of the case is that respondent No.2, Sharachandra, lodged a private complaint against the petitioner in P.C.No.264/2009 before the II-Additional JMFC, Bijapur, for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 417, 419, 465, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police, after investigation, submitted a 'B' summary report (indicating that the case was false or not supported by evidence). Aggrieved by the 'B' report, the complainant filed a protest petition. The Magistrate, after considering the protest petition and recording the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance of the offences and ordered registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, issuing summons to him. The petitioner challenged this order before the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Criminal Revision Petition No.249/2013. The revisional court set aside the Magistrate's order and directed the complainant to file a fresh protest petition. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the revisional court's order. The High Court heard arguments from Sri R.S. Lagali for the petitioner, Sri Prakash Yeli, Additional SPP for respondent No.1 (State), and Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti for respondent No.2. The court examined the legality of the revisional court's order. It noted that the Magistrate had taken cognizance on the protest petition after following the proper procedure. The revisional court, in its order, set aside the cognizance order and directed the complainant to file a fresh protest petition. The High Court held that the revisional court had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Once the Magistrate had taken cognizance, the revisional court could not set aside that order and direct filing of a fresh protest petition, as it would amount to reviewing its own order without jurisdiction. The High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed the order of the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, dated 26.09.2014 in Criminal Revision Petition No.249/2013, and restored the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397, 401 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Revision - The revisional court cannot set aside an order of cognizance taken by the Magistrate on a protest petition and direct the complainant to file a fresh protest petition, as it amounts to reviewing its own order without jurisdiction. The revisional court's power is limited to examining the legality or propriety of the order, not to substitute its own discretion. (Paras 5-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Protest Petition - B Summary Report - Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Procedure - When a Magistrate refers a complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the police submit a 'B' summary report, the complainant may file a protest petition. The Magistrate may take cognizance on the protest petition after recording sworn statement. Once cognizance is taken, the revisional court cannot direct the complainant to file a fresh protest petition. (Paras 3-5) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Order - The High Court can quash an order passed without jurisdiction by the revisional court. The order directing filing of fresh protest petition is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, had jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance on a protest petition and to direct the complainant to file a fresh protest petition.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Criminal Revision Petition No.249/2013. The order of the Magistrate taking cognizance was restored.
Law Points
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Section 482
- Section 397
- Section 401
- Section 156(3)
- protest petition
- B summary report
- cognizance
- revisional jurisdiction
- inherent powers
- quashing of order
