Sessions Court Can't Quash Cognizance & Summoning Order Of Magistrate While Exercising Its Revisional Power: Allahabad High Court

In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has observed that while exercising the revisional power, the Sessions Court cannot quash the cognizance and summoning order passed by the Magistrate as its revisional jurisdiction is very limited.

The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed further added that in case the Sessions Court finds any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error while acting as a revisional court, then instead of quashing the proceedings, it had power only to issue direction by pointing out the error in the magistrate order.

The case in brief

An F.I.R. was registered by the revisionist against opposite party no. 2 under Sections 147, 504, 506, 427, 448, 379 I.P.C.. Allegedly, a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer in a mechanical manner.

Thereafter, the Magistrate, after considering the protest petition and perusing the record of the case, summoned the accused under Section 379 Cr.P.C. in April 2001 expressing his judicial power.

This order was challenged before the District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj wherein the Court accepted the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and had set aside Magistrate's summoning order.

Therefore, the revisionist moved to the High Court challenging the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj.

Court's observations 

At the outset, in an attempt to explain the recourses available to a Magistrate in a scenario wherein police submits final report in a case findinhg no evidence against the accused to forward him/her for trial, the Court referred to Allahabad High Court's ruling in the case of Pakhando and others Vs. State of U.P. 2001 SCC Online All 967.

The Court noted that if upon the investigation, the Police come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence or any reasonable ground of suspicion to justify forwarding of accused to trial and submitting a final report for dropping proceedings, Magistrate shall have the following four courses and may adopt any one of them:

(I) He may agree with the conclusions arrived at by the police, accept the report, and drop the proceedings. But before so doing, he shall give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant; or

(II) He may take cognizance under Section 190(I)(b) and issue process straightway to the accused without being bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency, where he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed; or

(III) He may order further investigation, if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner; or

(IV) He may, without issuing process or dropping the proceedings decide to take cognizance under Section 190(I)(b) upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.

Against this backdrop, the Court upheld the power of the Magistrate to reject the final report and to summon the accused based on the protest petition filed by the informant/complainant.

Now, referring to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the Revisional Sessions Court's order was totally based on the plea of alibi of accused-opposite parties, therefore, the Court found that the said order (quashing summoning order of the Magistrate) was not sustainable in the eyes of the law.

"On exercising the revisional power, learned Sessions Court cannot quash the cognizance and summoning order passed by the Magistrate, in exercising its revisional power, jurisdiction of Sessions Court is very limited and the Sessions Court can only examine the illegality, irregularity and impropriety of the order passed by the Magistrate. If the Sessions Court find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error then Sessions Court cannot quash the proceedings but the revisional court have only power to issue direction by pointing out the error regarding the order passed by the Magistrate. Therefore, order of learned Sessions Court, is wholly erroneous and against the set principles of law," the Court held.

In view of this, the Court allowed the revision plea, and the order dated 26.07.2001 passed by the District and Session Judge, Kannauj was quashed.

Case title - Prabhakar Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. And Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2341 of 2001]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 293

Click Here To Read/Download Order