Recently, the Supreme Court held that a judicial Magistrate cannot entertain a protest petition against an order taking cognisance of a final report.
Brief Facts:
An FIR was registered against appellants allegedly present at the scene of the crime. A subsequent charge sheet was filed in 2005 against all four accused, but a re-examination by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) in 2009 yielded no incriminating evidence against the appellants.
In response to this, the father of the second respondent filed a protest petition, alleging collusion between the CID and the appellants. This protest petition was directed at the order dated 9th April 2009, wherein the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against Gupteshwar Singh. A surprising turn of events unfolded when, on 3rd November 2009, the Magistrate entertained the protest petition, modifying his earlier order and taking cognizance against the appellants. The other accused persons, against whom cognizance was taken subsequently, filed a petition before the Jharkhand High Court (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) under Section 482 CrPC against the action of the Magistrate. Since the High Court rejected their petition, they appealed to the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Parties:
The appellants presented arguments centred on the impropriety of entertaining a protest petition against the Magistrate's initial order of 9th April 2009. They contended that such a course of action was not legally tenable and exceeded the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The appellants emphasized a clear distinction between their case and the precedent cited by the High Court, Nupur Talwar vs. CBI and Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 188, asserting that the issue therein was fundamentally dissimilar.
Conversely, the State supported the High Court's decision. Their position was rooted in the belief that the Magistrate's authority to entertain a protest petition extended beyond the initial order of taking cognizance.
Observations by the Court:
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in entertaining a protest petition against his earlier order of taking cognizance, emphasizing that such a course was not permissible. The Court expressed surprise at the modification of the earlier order, stating that the Magistrate had no power to do so.
The Court's reasoning was based on the strict interpretation of procedural legality, affirming that the Magistrate's actions were beyond the permissible limits of his authority. The Court underscored the crucial principle that once cognizance is taken, it cannot be whimsically altered through the entertaining of a protest petition. Such an act was deemed impermissible, with the Court emphasizing that the Magistrate's power did not extend to modifying an earlier order of taking cognizance.
The decision of the Court:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment of 20th March 2023. The impugned order of 3rd November 2009, wherein cognizance was taken against the present appellants, was quashed and set aside.
Case Name: Ramakant Singh and others v. The State of Jharkhand and another
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justices Abhay S Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Mithal
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3484 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 858 SC
Advocates of the Appellant: Ms. Mrigna Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amar Jyoti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vedika Dalmia, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
