Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kumari Jayashree Dhondiba Sherkhan, filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenging the order dated 05.10.2013 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum at Chikkodi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 298/2013. The Sessions Judge had set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Athani in C.C. No. 2/2013, which had taken cognizance of offences against respondents 1 to 10 under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner was the first respondent in the revision before the Sessions Judge. The High Court examined the legality of the Sessions Judge's order. The court found that the Sessions Judge had not applied his mind to the material on record and had acted beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence. The High Court held that the order of the Sessions Judge was unsustainable and set it aside, restoring the order of the JMFC taking cognizance. The court directed the trial to proceed expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Cognizance of Offences - Section 204 Cr.P.C. - Application of Mind - The Magistrate must apply his mind to the complaint and the evidence on record before issuing process. The order of the Sessions Judge setting aside the cognizance order was set aside as the Sessions Judge failed to consider the material on record properly. (Paras 3-5)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Revision - The revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and must not interfere with the order of cognizance unless it is perverse or illegal. The Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of offences under Section 204 Cr.P.C. without proper application of mind.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order dated 05.10.2013 passed by the VII Addl. Dist. and S.J., Belgaum at Chikkodi in Crl. R.P. No. 298/2013, and restored the order of the JMFC, Athani in C.C. No. 2/2013 taking cognizance of offences. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case expeditiously.
Law Points
- Criminal defamation
- cognizance of offence
- application of mind
- Section 204 Cr.P.C.
- Section 397 Cr.P.C.
- revision against order of cognizance
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (03) 67
Criminal Revision Petition No. 957/2013
Devdas D. Sherkhan (for petitioner), Harish S. Maigur (for R2-10), Anand K. Navalagimath (Addl. S.P.P. for R11)
Kumari Jayashree Dhondiba Sherkhan
Shivaji Sakaram Sherkhane & Ors., State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Sessions Judge setting aside the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of offences.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 05.10.2013 passed by the VII Addl. Dist. and S.J., Belgaum at Chikkodi in Crl. R.P. No. 298/2013 and to confirm the order of the JMFC, Athani in C.C. No. 2/13.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the Sessions Judge's order setting aside the cognizance order passed by the JMFC under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
Previous Decisions
The JMFC, Athani had taken cognizance of offences against respondents 1 to 10 on 01.01.2013 in C.C. No. 2/2013. The Sessions Judge set aside that order on 05.10.2013 and remanded the matter.
Issues
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 204 Cr.P.C. without proper application of mind.
Whether the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence at the stage of cognizance.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge failed to apply his mind to the material on record and acted beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The respondents supported the Sessions Judge's order, contending that the Magistrate had not properly applied his mind.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court must not interfere with an order of cognizance unless it is perverse or illegal; the Sessions Judge's order setting aside cognizance was set aside for lack of application of mind and exceeding revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
Orders passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum, sitting at Chikkodi in Crl. R.P. No. 298/2013 dated 05.10.2013 is called in question before this Court by filing a revision petition u/S 397(1) of Cr.P.C.
By virtue of an order dated 05.10.2013, learned VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Belgaum sitting at Chikodi, has set aside the order passed by the Learned JMFC, Athani in C.C. No. 2/2013 arising out of P.C. No. 207/2011.
Procedural History
The JMFC, Athani took cognizance of offences against respondents 1 to 10 on 01.01.2013 in C.C. No. 2/2013. The respondents challenged this order before the VII Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Belgaum at Chikkodi in Crl. R.P. No. 298/2013, which was allowed on 05.10.2013, setting aside the cognizance order and remanding the matter. The petitioner then filed the present revision petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Section 204, Section 397(1), Section 402
