A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the correctness of the actions taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) and the High Court regarding the cognizance of offenses based on a Protest Petition supported by affidavits. The CJM rejected a closure report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and proceeded under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, summoning the accused. The appellant argued that reliance on additional evidence, such as affidavits, required treatment as a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC. The Supreme Court clarified the procedural obligations under Chapter XV of the CrPC and remanded the matter for proper proceedings. The judgment highlights procedural nuances in treating Protest Petitions as complaints and the distinction between materials under Sections 190(1)(a) and 190(1)(b) of CrPC.

Keywords: Protest Petition, Section 190 CrPC, Complaint, Magistrate’s Cognizance, Police Closure Report.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title
Mukhtar Zaidi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 2134 of 2024.

iii) Judgment Date
April 18, 2024.

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum
Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

vi) Author
Justice Vikram Nath.

vii) Citation
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 655 : 2024 INSC 316.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Sections 190(1)(a) & (b) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Section 173(2) CrPC.
• Sections 147, 342, 323, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None explicitly stated.

x) Case Related to Which Law Subjects
Criminal Procedure and Criminal Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arises from the dismissal of an application under Section 482 CrPC by the Allahabad High Court. This application sought to quash the summoning order issued by the CJM under Sections 147, 342, 323, 307, and 506 IPC. The FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2 alleged certain offenses, but the Investigating Officer submitted a closure report under Section 173(2) CrPC, citing insufficient evidence. The respondent opposed the closure through a Protest Petition supported by affidavits, leading to the CJM’s cognizance and summoning of the accused. The appellant contended that procedural irregularities, including reliance on additional materials, vitiated the cognizance.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. An FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2 against the accused for alleged offenses under Sections 147, 342, 323, 307, and 506 IPC.
2. The Investigating Officer submitted a closure report under Section 173(2) CrPC, citing lack of evidence.
3. Respondent No. 2 filed a Protest Petition supported by affidavits challenging the fairness of the investigation and alleging non-recording of witness statements.
4. The CJM rejected the closure report and, relying on the Protest Petition and affidavits, took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, summoning the accused.
5. The High Court upheld this action, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the CJM erred in taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC based on additional evidence submitted with the Protest Petition.
2. Whether such reliance necessitated treatment of the Protest Petition as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC, requiring compliance with Chapter XV procedures.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant argued that reliance on affidavits filed with the Protest Petition introduced additional evidence. Under such circumstances, the Protest Petition should be treated as a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC.
2. The CJM exceeded jurisdiction by continuing the matter as a State case without following the procedures outlined in Chapter XV of CrPC.
3. The Magistrate’s action violated precedents, including Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ([2019] 8 SCC 27), which clarify the treatment of Protest Petitions as complaints when they rely on additional materials.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The Respondents argued that the CJM acted within his jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, relying only on materials in the case diary.
2. The Protest Petition merely highlighted deficiencies in the investigation without transforming the proceedings into a complaint case.
3. The impugned order adhered to procedural mandates, and cognizance based on materials from the case diary was justified.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The Supreme Court clarified that if a Magistrate relies on affidavits and additional materials beyond the case diary, the Protest Petition must be treated as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC.
2. The Court emphasized procedural compliance with Chapter XV of CrPC when dealing with such complaints.
3. The Magistrate’s satisfaction of prima facie evidence required adherence to the structured process for summoning the accused.

b. Obiter Dicta

The judgment highlighted the discretion of Magistrates in accepting or rejecting Protest Petitions but stressed procedural safeguards when additional materials are introduced.

c. Guidelines

1. Magistrates must distinguish between cases under Section 190(1)(a) and Section 190(1)(b) CrPC.
2. Protest Petitions containing additional evidence must be treated as complaints under Section 200 CrPC.
3. Procedures under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC must be strictly followed, including examination of complainants and witnesses.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the procedural rigor required in criminal proceedings, especially when dealing with Protest Petitions. It underscores the distinction between State-led prosecutions and private complaints, ensuring fairness and transparency in criminal trials. The emphasis on Chapter XV of CrPC provides clarity on the steps to be followed when Magistrates rely on supplementary evidence.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2019] 8 SCC 27.
2. Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117.
3. Veerappa v. Bhimareddappa, 2002 Cri LJ 2150.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 190, 200, 202, 173(2).
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 342, 323, 307, 506.