Magistrate's Order For FIR Can't Be Set Aside For Absence Of 'Reasons Of Prima Facie Satisfaction' If Complaint Contains Material Particulars: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has recently held that an order of Magistrate directing to register FIR cannot be quashed merely in the absence of recoding reasons on how the Magistrate was satisfied about the prima facie case. Justice RN Manjula held that only when a mechanical order is passed on a bald complaint, the same can be set aside for not listing out the reasons. Though it is...
The Madras High Court has recently held that an order of Magistrate directing to register FIR cannot be quashed merely in the absence of recoding reasons on how the Magistrate was satisfied about the prima facie case.
Justice RN Manjula held that only when a mechanical order is passed on a bald complaint, the same can be set aside for not listing out the reasons.
Though it is correct to state that the Court has to record the reasons basing on the allegations how it got satisfied about the prima facie case, that would benefit the petitioner only if the complaint given by the second respondent is bald and the learned Magistrate has mechanically passed an order to register an FIR without appreciating the baldness in the complaint.
The court added that though it would have been better if the Metropolitan Magistrate had recorded reasons, it could not be the reason to set aside the order when the complaint contained material particulars. Thus, it could be said that the order was passed without application of mind.
Had it recorded the reasons as to why the Court got satisfied about the prima facie case that could have been a better order, but that cannot be the reason to set aside the order even when the complaint contains the material particulars. Hence it cannot be said that the order has been passed without application of mind.
In the present case, the de facto complainant was working in the petitioner’s firm when the petitioner approached her in an inappropriate and unsolicited manner. The petitioner was in the habit of sexually coloured messages and tried to make physical closeness with her. At one instance, when she did not respond to his demands, the de facto complainant was dismissed from the company. Thus, a petition was filed under Section 156(3) before the Magistrate. The magistrate was also informed that the police had failed to take any action on her complaint.
The petitioner countered the allegations by submitting that the de facto complainant had misappropriate the company’s fund by abusing her position and issuing fake vouchers and falsified the accounts. After a complaint was lodged, the present complaint was filed as a counter blast. The petitioner also contended that the impugned order was a cryptic one and did not speak about any justification for directing the registration of FIR.
The petitioner also questioned the veracity of the complaint by submitting that the complainant continued to be in service even after alleging sexual harassment. It was submitted that if the harassment was true, she would not have continued her service.
The court noted that the motive alleged can be put to test only when a detailed investigation is made. In the present case, it was premature to come to any conclusion based on the materials at the current stage. Since the materials disclosed a cognisable offence, the court noted that it was right for the Magistrate to order the registration of FIR.
The court added that if after conclusion of investigation, no sufficient materials were collected or if the complaint was found to be a motivated one, the petitioner was at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings.
Case Title: C Kasthuriraj v. The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 64