Skip to main content

Dismissal of complaint under crpc

 

Dismissal of Complaint under CrPC


According to Section 203 of CrPC, “The Magistrate can also dismiss the complaint if inquiry or investigation under Section 202 result no ground for proceedings”, i.e, after considering the statements of the complainant and its witnesses under Section 200 and the result of investigation under Section 202, the Judicial Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed in the matter, he shall dismiss the complaint with brief recorded reasons. A second complaint on the same facts could be entertained only in exceptional cases.

Issue of Process

As per Section 204 CrPC, if the Judicial Magistrate taking Cognizance of an offence considers that there is sufficient ground to proceed in the matter, he shall issue process against the accused person in the following manner:

  • If it’s a summons case, he shall issue a summons for the attendance of the accused

  • If it’s a warrant case, he may issue a warrant or if he thinks fit, may issue a summon for causing the accused to appear at a certain date and time.

This whole procedure of issuing summons or warrants under Section 204 CrPC is to make the accused person aware of the prosecution witnesses and to prepare his defence.

Once the Judicial Magistrate has issued summons or warrants in a case, he cannot recall his order of issue process. Therefore, the only recourse available to the aggrieved person to challenge the issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC is by invoking Section 482 CrPC.

Dismissal of complaint

Section 203 of CrPC authorises a Magistrate to take cognizance on a complaint by the complainant to build an opinion regarding the sufficiency of grounds to continue with the proceeding of the case. This opinion must be based on the statements made by the complainant and his witnesses and further depends on the result of the investigation or of an inquiry as per Section 202. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind on the material facts available regarding the case and then form an opinion whether those grounds are sufficient or not to continue further with the proceeding of the case.

The case is entirely triable by the Court of Session at the stage of Section 203 and Section 204 of CrPC. All that the Magistrate is required to do is to study or examine the complaint properly and to check that the evidence recorded during the introductory inquiry under the Section 200 and Section 202 are direct evidence in support of the charges put on the accused person. At the later stage that is as per Section 203, the Magistrate is not required to measure the available evidence precisely and leave it for the trial court to perform. The quality to be maintained in examining the evidence should not be the same as maintained during the stage of framing charges. The standards of proof and opinion should not be applied exactly during the stage of framing charges like applied finally before establishing the accused person guilty of the offence. So if, the stage of Section 202 or 204 provides with the direct evidence to support the allegation put on the accused in the complaint related to the case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, that will be sufficient ground for issuing the process to the accused and further committing him for the trial to the Court of Session.  

As per the Section 203, the magistrate in exercising his discretion should not allow himself to get manipulated by consideration of the motive by which the complainant may have acted in the matter and not by any other consideration outside the facts which are presented by the complainant in support of his complaint against the accused. Mere lapse of time between the attempt of offence and date of the complaint made by the complainant is no ground for throwing out the complaint, though that may be relevant considering at the trial for evaluating evidence when presented.

The order of dismissal of the complaint by the Magistrate is subject to the examination by higher courts and can be reviewed later. Therefore, the recording of the reasons behind the dismissal of the complaint would be useful for such an examination of the complaint. At this stage, it should be possible for the accused to satisfy the Magistrate that there was no case existing at all against him and that he can recall the order issuing process as per the Section 204 and further dismiss the complaint under Section 203. In the Chiman Lal v Datar Singh and Ors (1997) case, it was held that the dismissal of a complaint is inappropriate where the Magistrate is unable to examine the material facts and witnesses as stated under 202 of CrPC.

 

 

 

 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more