Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by the accused persons (petitioners) against an order passed by the learned JMFC II Court, Hubli, issuing process against them under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 451, 323, 354, 504, 506, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The respondent-complainant, Jyothi W/o Nagesh Goudar, filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioners committed these offences. Among the offences, Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The complainant cited four witnesses in the complaint: herself (CW-1), Pradeep Savadatti (CW-2), Gurunatha Basappa Hadapad (CW-3), and two others (Uma and R.M.O. of KIMS Hospital). However, the Magistrate examined only the complainant and two witnesses (CW-2 and CW-3) before taking cognizance and issuing summons/warrants against the accused. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that the Magistrate should have examined all four witnesses before issuing process, especially since the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, dismissed the revision petition. The Court held that under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not required to examine all witnesses cited in the complaint; it is sufficient to examine such witnesses as are necessary to form an opinion that there is sufficient ground to proceed. The Court further observed that Section 202 Cr.P.C., which provides for an inquiry by the Magistrate, is not mandatory in cases where the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The Magistrate may dispense with such inquiry if he is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds. In this case, the examination of the complainant and two witnesses provided enough material to issue process. The Court found no illegality or irregularity in the Magistrate's order and dismissed the revision petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Issue of Process - Section 204 Cr.P.C. - Magistrate's Power - The question was whether a Magistrate can issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. without examining all witnesses cited by the complainant when the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Court held that the Magistrate is not required to examine all witnesses before taking cognizance and issuing process. The examination of the complainant and two witnesses was sufficient to form an opinion that there is sufficient ground to proceed. (Paras 1-4) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Private Complaint - Examination of Witnesses - Section 200 Cr.P.C. - The Court clarified that Section 200 Cr.P.C. does not mandate the examination of all witnesses cited in the complaint. The Magistrate may examine only such witnesses as are necessary to decide whether to issue process. In this case, the complainant examined herself and two other witnesses, which was adequate. (Paras 2-4) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Cognizance of Offence - Section 202 Cr.P.C. - The Court noted that Section 202 Cr.P.C. is not mandatory for private complaints when the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Magistrate may dispense with the inquiry under Section 202 if he is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate has the right to issue summons or warrants under Section 204 Cr.P.C. without examining all the witnesses on behalf of the complainant, when the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, holding that the Magistrate was not required to examine all witnesses before issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The order of the Magistrate was upheld.
Law Points
- Magistrate's power to issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. does not require examination of all witnesses before cognizance
- even for offences exclusively triable by Sessions Court
- Section 200 Cr.P.C. does not mandate examination of all cited witnesses
- Section 202 Cr.P.C. is not mandatory for private complaints when offence is exclusively triable by Sessions Court
