Dismissal of Criminal Private Complaint
Harshpal
(Querist) 18 October 2010
This query is : Resolved
The learned CJM dismissed the criminal complaint and passed the following order.
Perusal of complaint does not show any element of malafide intention on part of the accused.
Accordingly there is no ground for taking cognizance & registration of complaint.
Thus complaint is dismissed at the cognizance stage itself.
File be cosigned
Can the learned CJM pass this order with out following procedure under section 200
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 18 October 2010
The Magistrate can not dismiss a complaint before taking cognizance of a case. The procedure is that if after considering the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, if any on solemn affirmation the Magistrate is not satisfied then he can dismiss the case or else issue process.
If in your case this procedure was not followed then challenge the order of dismissal before the Sessions Court or the High Court.
pawan sharma
(Expert) 18 October 2010
Dear,
you put only the order in your Q, but not mention the fact of the complaint.
where the Magistrate have power to reject summarlly.
Harshpal
(Querist) 18 October 2010
Dear Mr. Barman
Even the Session court has dismissed our revision petition. Can we go to HC under 482
Harshpal
(Querist) 18 October 2010
Dear Mr. Sharma
I request you to kindly guide me in which cases the Magistrate have power to reject summarlly
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 18 October 2010
Yes,even such order can be challenged before the high court under 482 crpc.
Harshpal
(Querist) 18 October 2010
Thanks Mr. Barman
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 18 October 2010
When the Complaint is filed u/s 200 cr.p.c., the Magistrate is empowered to take it on file or order for inquiry u/s 202. After the inquiry u/s 202, he can take it on file and issue process u/s 204. The magistrate can also dismiss the complaint u/s 203 even without taking taking it on file (without numbering the calender case).
Harshpal
(Querist) 18 October 2010
Dear Mr.Arunagiri
The learned CJM passed his order with out following procedure under section 200
Manish Singh
(Expert) 19 October 2010
Dear All,
I beg to differ with the opinions made hereof as the Magistrate is empowered to dismiss the complaint before taking cognizance of a complaint if in his views the complaint does not not have make out an offence.
I agree with Mr.Burman's second part that statement of the Complainant & witnesses must be taken on record.
Please follow this case law Sugesan Finance Investment By Its Partner vs State Of Karnataka ILR 1984 KAR 78
Harshpal
(Querist) 19 October 2010
Dear Manish
But in our case statement of the Complainant was not taken on record
Harshpal
(Querist) 19 October 2010
Dear Manish
I have read case law Sugesan Finance Investment By Its Partner vs State Of Karnataka ILR 1984 KAR 78 but in our case the reason of dismissal is very ambigous. Nowhere the Learned CJM has said that he is dimissing the case because it is civil in nature. On one hand he is saying we go to DRT on other hand he is going in to the merits of the case & saying persual of complaint does not show any element of malafide intention without giving chance to Complainant to prove the malafide intention of the defandent by denying him the right under section 200
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 19 October 2010
Whether the complaint contains ingredients or not can only be ascertained by examining the Complainant and his witnesses and considering the petition of complaint. Before dismissal u/s 203 Cr.P.Code the court has to refer all these things. Court is duty bound to take cognizance u/s 190 Cr.P.C first thereafter it shall proceed for 200 Cr.p.C examination. The approach and order of the court is most illegal. You should file application u/s 483 Cr.p.c in High Court
Harshpal
(Querist) 19 October 2010
Dear Mr. Bhagat
The section 190 Cr.P.C says " Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence"
The word used is may implying the Magistrate is not duty bound to take cognizance
