Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Protest Petitions: Mukhtar Zaidi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: April 18, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 316

Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Can a Magistrate take cognizance of an offense based on a protest petition and additional affidavits filed by the complainant, or should it be treated as a private complaint? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal. The court clarified the procedure a Magistrate must follow when a complainant submits a protest petition along with additional evidence after the police files a closure report. This judgment provides clarity on the powers of a Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) when dealing with such situations. The bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, with Justice Vikram Nath authoring the judgment.

Case Background

On an unspecified date, Respondent No. 2 lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at Police Station, Civil Lines, District Aligarh, leading to an investigation. After investigation, the police submitted a report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., stating that no evidence was found to support the allegations in the FIR. The report was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Aligarh, who then issued notices to the informant (Respondent No. 2). The informant filed a Protest Petition, along with affidavits, alleging that the police investigation was unfair and that the Investigating Officer did not properly record witness statements.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Aligarh, rejected the police report on 08.03.2021 and took cognizance of offenses under Sections 147, 342, 323, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The CJM also directed that the matter would proceed as a State case and summoned the accused. The appellant challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court through a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on 24.08.2021. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which outlines how a Magistrate can take cognizance of offenses. Specifically, the relevant sub-sections are:

• Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.: “upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;” This refers to cognizance taken based on a formal complaint filed by a private individual.
• Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.: “upon a police report of such facts;” This refers to cognizance taken based on a report submitted by the police after an investigation.

The court also referred to Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., which defines a “complaint” as “any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the CJM erred by taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. because the CJM relied not only on the Protest Petition but also on the affidavits of witnesses filed along with it.
• The appellant contended that once the CJM relied on additional material (affidavits) submitted by the complainant, the CJM should have treated the Protest Petition as a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and proceeded accordingly.
• The appellant submitted that the case should have been treated as a private complaint, not a State case.
• The appellant argued that while the CJM could reject the police report based on the case diary, relying on additional evidence required treating the matter as a private complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the CJM did not consider the additional affidavits filed with the Protest Petition.
• They contended that the CJM relied solely on the material collected during the police investigation, as contained in the case diary.
• The respondents submitted that the CJM’s decision to reject the police report and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. was within his powers and did not suffer from any infirmity.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the CJM was correct in taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. after rejecting the police report and considering the Protest Petition along with additional affidavits.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow & Anr. [(2019) 8 SCC 27]: The Supreme Court referred to this case, which dealt with a similar situation where affidavits were filed along with a Protest Petition. The Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari held that the Magistrate should treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and proceed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. The Court held that if the Magistrate relies on additional material in the form of evidence produced by the complainant along with the Protest Petition, then the only option for the Magistrate is to treat it as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and proceed accordingly.
• Mahabir Prasad Agarwala v. State [1957 SCC OnLine Ori 5 : AIR 1958 Ori 11]: A learned Judge of the High Court of Orissa, took the view that a Protest Petition is in the nature of a complaint and should be examined in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code.
• Qasim v. State [1984 SCC OnLine All 260 : 1984 Cri LJ 1677]: A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad held that a Protest Petition does not necessarily have to be treated as a complaint if it does not satisfy the conditions of a complaint.
• Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 SC 117 : 1968 Cri LJ 97 : (1967) 3 SCR 668]: The Supreme Court observed that it was unclear whether the Magistrate had chosen to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint.
• Veerappa v. Bhimareddappa [2001 SCC OnLine Kar 447 : 2002 Cri LJ 2150]: The High Court of Karnataka observed that if a complainant wants to protest a police report, he is inviting the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. on a complaint.

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This provision allows a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offense upon receiving a complaint of facts.
• Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This provision allows a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offense upon a police report of such facts.
• Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section defines a complaint as any allegation made to a Magistrate, but it does not include a police report.
• Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This provision deals with the police report after investigation.
• Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section outlines the procedure for examining a complainant and witnesses.
• Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This chapter deals with complaints to Magistrates.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the precedent set in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2019) 8 SCC 27]* , which held that when a Magistrate considers additional evidence (like affidavits) along with a protest petition, it should be treated as a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. and proceed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.
• The Court referred to Mahabir Prasad Agarwala v. State [1957 SCC OnLine Ori 5 : AIR 1958 Ori 11]* to highlight the view that a protest petition can be treated as a complaint.
• The Court also referred to Qasim v. State [1984 SCC OnLine All 260 : 1984 Cri LJ 1677]* to point out that a protest petition need not always be treated as a complaint.
• The Court referred to Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 SC 117 : 1968 Cri LJ 97 : (1967) 3 SCR 668]* to show that it was unclear whether the Magistrate had treated the Protest Petition as a complaint.
• The Court referred to Veerappa v. Bhimareddappa [2001 SCC OnLine Kar 447 : 2002 Cri LJ 2150]* to show that a protest petition is an invitation to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal principle that when a Magistrate considers additional evidence beyond the police report, the matter should be treated as a private complaint. The court emphasized the importance of following the procedure outlined in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. when such additional evidence is introduced. The court’s reasoning focused on the procedural requirements for handling complaints and ensuring that the complainant’s grievances are properly addressed.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was heavily weighted towards legal considerations (80%), focusing on the correct interpretation and application of procedural laws. The factual aspects of the case (20%) played a lesser role, primarily serving as the context for the legal analysis.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Magistrate should have followed the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. once additional evidence was considered. The court stated, “In the present case as the Magistrate had already recorded his satisfaction that it was a case worth taking cognizance and fit for summoning the accused, we are of the view that the Magistrate ought to have followed the provisions and the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.” The court clarified that “the Magistrate also had the liberty to reject the Protest Petition along with all other material which may have been filed in support of the same. In that event the Complainant would be at liberty to file a fresh complaint.” The court further stated, “The right of the Complainant to file a petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is not taken away even if the Magistrate concerned does not direct that such a Protest Petition be treated as a complaint.”

Key Takeaways

• When a complainant files a Protest Petition along with affidavits or other evidence, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
• The Magistrate must treat the Protest Petition and additional evidence as a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.
• The Magistrate must then follow the procedure outlined in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., which includes examining the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
• The Magistrate has the option to reject the Protest Petition and allow the complainant to file a fresh complaint.
• This judgment ensures that complainants have a proper avenue for their grievances when the police submit a closure report.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the High Court and the CJM, Aligarh. The court directed the Magistrate to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and proceed in accordance with the law under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. The court clarified that it had not made any comments on the merits of the case and that its observations should not influence the CJM’s decision.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a Magistrate receives a protest petition along with additional evidence (such as affidavits) after a police closure report, the Magistrate must treat the protest petition as a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. and proceed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. This judgment reinforces the legal position established in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, clarifying the procedure for handling protest petitions with additional evidence and ensuring that such cases are treated as private complaints, not state cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mukhtar Zaidi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies the procedure that Magistrates must follow when dealing with protest petitions accompanied by additional evidence. The Court emphasized that such cases should be treated as private complaints, requiring adherence to the procedures outlined in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. This ruling ensures a fair process for complainants who challenge police closure reports and provides a clear legal framework for Magistrates to follow in such situations.