S.200 CrPC/S.227 BNSS | Supreme Court Asks Magistrates To Ascertain Truth Of Complaints Before Summoning Accused

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 26) quashed a complaint filed for the offence of cheque dishonour under the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) after noting that the complainant suppressed material facts and abused the judicial process by withholding loan documents.

The Court observed that criminal law cannot be set in motion by suppressing material facts.

“While filing a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and recording his statement on oath in support of the complaint, as the complainant suppresses material facts and documents, he cannot be allowed to set criminal law in motion based on the complaint. Setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”, the Court observed.

The Case

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was deciding an appeal against an order of the Madras High Court refusing to quash the complaint.

The appellant allegedly took loan from the Respondent-Cooperative Society and issued blank cheques as security.

In 2016, the respondent deposited the second security cheque (₹27.27 lakh), which also bounced. A legal notice was sent (11.11.2016), but the appellant denied liability, demanding loan documents to verify the debt.

In her reply to the demand notice, the appellant requested the loan documents, but the respondent did not provide them. Despite this, the respondent filed a complaint in December 2016, suppressing these letters. The Magistrate issued a process (summons) in March 2017.

The High Court's decision to uphold the Magistrate's order to issue a process prompted the Appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Decision

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Oka emphasized that the law cannot be set into motion by issuing a process on a complaint without satisfying that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The Court underscored the Magistrate's duty to apply its mind before setting criminal law into motion.

“Recording the complainant's statement on oath under Section 200 of the CrPC is not an empty formality. The object of recording the complainant's statement and witnesses, if any, is to ascertain the truth. The learned Magistrate is duty-bound to put questions to the complainant to elicit the truth. The examination is necessary to enable the Court to satisfy itself whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. After considering the complaint, the documents produced along with the complaint, and the statements of the complainant and witnesses, if any, the learned Magistrate has to apply his mind to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, then the learned Magistrate has to issue a process in terms of sub-Section (1) of Section 204 of the CrPC. The corresponding provision under the BNSS is Section 227. Setting criminal law in motion is a serious matter. The accused faces serious consequences in the sense that he has to defend himself in the trial.", the court observed.

The Court noted that the complainant's failure to provide documents deprived the appellant of a chance to contest the debt's validity;moreover, the act of respondent suppressing material facts (appellant's letters demanding documents) while filing the complaint misled the Magistrate into issuing summons.

“Thus, this was a case where very material documents in the form of two letters addressed by the appellant were suppressed in the complaint and the statement on oath under Section 200. In the statement on oath, the respondent-complainant vaguely referred to a 'false notice reply', but a copy of the reply was not produced by the respondent along with the complaint.”, the court noted.

It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making. Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the pending complaint case against the Appellant.

Case Title: REKHA SHARAD USHIR versus SAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTA LTD.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Mr. Risvi Muhammed, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Agarwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yeshwant Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaokar, Adv. Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv. Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv.