Supreme Court Quashes Cognizance Order Based on Protest Petition: Ramakant Singh vs. State of Jharkhand (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 7 November 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1002

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a Magistrate modify an order taking cognizance of an offense based on a protest petition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the procedural correctness of a Magistrate’s actions. The court examined whether a Magistrate could entertain a protest petition against an order taking cognizance and subsequently issue another order taking cognizance against other accused persons. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

On 11th November 2003, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed by Dhananjay Singh, alleging offenses under Sections 326, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The FIR primarily accused Gupteshwar Singh, while implicating the appellants as being present at the scene of the crime.

A charge-sheet was initially filed on 3rd January 2005 against all four accused individuals. However, following a reinvestigation by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) ordered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29th November 2006, a new charge-sheet was submitted on 31st March 2009. This report stated that no evidence was found against the appellants.

On 9th April 2009, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against only Gupteshwar Singh based on the CID’s report. Subsequently, the second respondent’s father filed a protest petition, alleging collusion between the CID and the appellants. The Magistrate then, on 3rd November 2009, took cognizance against the appellants as well. This order was challenged before the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants challenged the order dated 3rd November 2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nupur Talwar vs. CBI and Anr. [(2012) 2 SCC 188], holding that a court can proceed on the basis of a protest petition. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with cognizance of offenses by Magistrates. Specifically, the Court considered whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offense under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 190 of the CrPC based on a protest petition against an order taking cognizance against other accused persons.

Section 190(1)(b) of the CrPC states that a Magistrate may take cognizance of any offense upon a police report. In this case, the CID had submitted a report stating no material was found against the appellants.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the issue in Nupur Talwar (supra) was different. They contended that while a protest petition can challenge a final report by the investigating agency, it cannot challenge an order of cognizance. The appellants submitted that the Magistrate could not modify the order dated 9th April 2009, which had taken cognizance only against Gupteshwar Singh, by subsequently taking cognizance against them based on a protest petition.

The State argued that the High Court was correct in relying on Nupur Talwar (supra), which allows a court to proceed on the basis of a protest petition.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have entertained a protest petition against his earlier order dated 9th April 2009, taking cognizance against only one accused, and proceed to take cognizance against the present appellants on 3rd November 2009?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authority:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on Nupur Talwar (supra). The court clarified that while a protest petition can be filed against a final report of the investigating agency, it cannot be used to challenge or modify an order of cognizance already passed by a Magistrate.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the order dated 3rd November 2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, amounted to a modification of the earlier order dated 9th April 2009, which was not permissible under law. The Court stated that there is no power conferred on a Judicial Magistrate to modify an earlier order of taking cognizance.

The Court stated, “Such a course was not permissible as it was not open for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to entertain a protest petition against his earlier order of taking cognizance. The order dated 3rd November, 2009, amounts to modification of the earlier order dated 9th April, 2009, which was not permissible as there is no power conferred on the learned Judicial Magistrate to modify earlier order of taking cognizance.”

The Court further clarified, “In this case, the Court was dealing with a completely different case where protest petition was filed against an order taking cognizance.”

The Court also clarified, “We also make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the question of involvement of the present appellants in the crime in question. This judgment will not prevent the Court from proceeding in accordance with law at a later stage.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural impropriety of the Magistrate’s actions. The Court emphasized that once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offense, that order cannot be modified based on a protest petition. The Court focused on the legal principle that a Magistrate does not have the power to modify an earlier order of taking cognizance.

Key Takeaways

• A Magistrate cannot modify an order taking cognizance of an offense based on a protest petition.
• A protest petition can only be entertained against the final report of the investigating agency, not against an order of cognizance.
• The Supreme Court clarified that its earlier judgment in Nupur Talwar (supra) was not applicable to the facts of this case.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural correctness in criminal proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the order dated 3rd November 2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and clarified that the order dated 9th April 2009, taking cognizance against Gupteshwar Singh, is maintained.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Magistrate cannot modify an order taking cognizance of an offense based on a protest petition. This clarifies the scope of Section 190 of the CrPC and reinforces the principle that a Magistrate’s power to modify an order of cognizance is limited. This judgment clarifies the position of law and does not reflect a change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and quashing the Magistrate’s order of 3rd November 2009. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and clarifies the limitations on a Magistrate’s power to modify orders of cognizance based on protest petitions. The Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the involvement of the appellants in the crime.