ABRAHAM Vs. V M THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of facts, which constitute such an offence, from a private individual under S.190(i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is bound to comply with the provisions of S.200 by examining the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. If after considering those statements be is satisfied that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding, he can dismiss the complaint under S.203. On the other hand, if his satisfaction is that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he can issue process under S.204. Except in complaints involving offences exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, a preliminary enquiry under S.202 is only optional according to the discretion of the Magistrate. He need have such an enquiry only if even after complying with S.200 some doubt lingers in his mind as to whether he has to proceed or not.

(2.) To bring an offender to justice is the right of every one subject to the restrictions imposed by law in public interest. So also, it is the right of anyone that he is not unnecessarily harassed by a false or frivolous prosecution. Courts have a great responsibility in this respect. Provisions like S.200, 202 and 203 were introduced in the Code to act as a compromise between these two rights. Purpose is avoidance of the trouble and agony of a criminal trial when it is not necessary. In exercising this check, Magistrates will have to act judicially. When process is issued under S.204 on the required satisfaction, it is not necessary to a pass formal order. The mere issue of process will be a visible manifestation of the satisfaction. But when complaint is dismissed under S.203, it must be by a speaking order, briefly recording the reasons for so doing.

(3.) When the Magistrate dismisses the complaint without giving reasons as required under S.203, the error is of a kind which goes into the root of the matter. Giving reasons is a statutory pre-requisite for making an order of dismissal under S.203. Absence of reasons may even be capable of making the order a nullity in given cases. Even assuming, as held in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1956 SC 116 ), that the omission to state the reasons is only a curable irregularity depending upon the facts of cases and nature of omission, the question of prejudice is another aspect that has to be considered. The order is a judicial order which is justiciable also. Even if it is not justiciable, a judicial order must be reasoned. The complainant is entitled to know why and for what reasons his complaint was dismissed. Then only he will be able to consider whether an approach to the revisional court will be of use. His right to move the revisional court will otherwise be seriously affected. When he takes the matter before the revisional court, his task becomes more onerous, particularly in view of the limited scope of the supervisory revisional jurisdiction in exercise of which the discretion by the Magistrate on his satisfaction may not be lightly interfered. That is because what is required is the satisfaction of the Magistrate alone and nobody else. The revisional court also must know what are the reasons which prevailed with the Magistrate in order to decide whether interference will be justified or not or interference is necessary in the ends of justice (Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and another AIR 1963 SC 1430 ).