LI Network
Published on: January 16, 2024 at 11:50 IST
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court highlighted the crucial role of prudence, discernment, and realism that a magistrate must exercise while deciding whether to initiate criminal proceedings against an individual under Sections 203 and 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The Court overturned a Revision Court order affirming summoning orders against the accused under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), following a complaint. Advocate Manoj Kumar Mishra represented the petitioner, and Advocate Surendra Yadav appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, dissatisfied with the summoning order against Sangeeta J.K. related to a complaint by Dashrath Kumar Dixit regarding the alleged misuse of funds for handicapped welfare, initiated an Article 227 petition.
The petitioner contested both the summoning order and the Revisional Court’s affirmation, seeking the annulment of orders and the quashing of the entire proceedings in the complaint case.
The Court framed key issues:
- Whether an offense under Section 504 IPC is established based on the complainant and witness statements.
- Whether the magistrate applied judicial discretion before taking cognizance.
The Court emphasized that “sufficient ground to proceed” and “satisfaction” are equivalent, forming a prerequisite for the court or magistrate before issuing process under Section 204 CrPC. It cautioned magistrates to exercise caution before taking cognizance and proceeding against the accused.
The ruling stressed the need for the magistrate’s judicial discretion, balancing the mandate to determine if an offense is disclosed with the prohibition against meticulous evidence analysis. Magistrates should avoid a casual approach and instead apply a prudent and realistic assessment of the evidence to decide whether to proceed further. Sections 203 and 204 CrPC were described as two sides of the same coin, representing the true test of a judicial mind.
The Court underlined the importance of magistrates conducting inquiries under Section 202 CrPC to prevent one-sided views based solely on complainant statements and witnesses. It further discussed the role of revisional courts in forming an independent perspective based on the available material.
Regarding intentional insult under Section 504 IPC, the court clarified that such an act must provoke the insulted person to break public peace or commit another offense. The ruling found the alleged insult during an inquiry to be a stray, carelessly made statement, not intended to incite a breach of peace.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders in the case of Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. v State of UP and Another.
