Taking cognizance and summoning the accused in view of report under S. 173 CrPC - Discussed

 

Whether Magistrate is required to give elaborate reasons for taking cognizance and summoning the accused in view of report under S. 173 CrPC?

In the judgment R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., (1963) 1 SCR 121 wherein was stated that  

“The word ‘cognizance was used in the Code to indicate the point when the Magistrate or a Judge first takes judicial notice of an offence. It is a different thing from the initiation of proceedings.” 

It is also settled law that while taking cognizance and issuing summons in respect of IPC offences, based on the report under Section 173 CrPC, recording elaborate reasons is not required provided if sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused has been satisfied.

Whether the petitioner has to file affidavit or not, in order to invoke the jurisdiction of Magistrate under section 156(3) of CrPC?

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava -vs- State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 : 2015 Cri LJ 2396 : AIR 2015 SC 1758 observed as follows: -

“30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.”

“31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.”

Refer to recent judgment of Karnataka High Court in C.T. Ravi -vs- State of Karnataka, W.P. No.62671 OF 2016, decided on 22-10-2020

 

Madras High Court Quashed FIR filed against the CAA and NRC protestors

 The Hon'ble Madras High has issued an order with the following remarks

"The country had witnessed protests all over by different sections of people against the said amendments. Since the protest was peaceful and even the First Information Report does not disclose any act of violence or happening of untoward incident, I am of the view that the continued prosecution is not warranted. Quashing the same will secure the ends of justice."

Ref: Madurai Bench - Saathik Ali  -Vs- The State and another – law.tutorialbee.com