CRPC | Magistrate Need Not Pass Detailed Order At Process Issuance Stage, Application Of Mind Is Crucial: J&K High Court

Justice Rajnesh Oswal made this observation while dismissing a petition challenging the issuance of process in a case involving alleged offenses under Sections 494, 109, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case was rooted in a complaint by respondent Kanchan Devi, who alleged that her husband, Kali Dass, had remarried without legally dissolving their existing marriage. Devi claimed that Dass's family members petitioners in this case were complicit in facilitating the second marriage, which was reportedly solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jammu.

The respondent stated that she was initially informed about the second marriage by family members, and upon further investigation at Arya Samaj Mandir, she obtained supporting documents substantiating her claim.

Following her complaint, the Magistrate issued a process against the petitioners under IPC Sections 494 (bigamy), 109 (abetment), and 34 (common intention). The petitioners sought to quash this order, contending that there were no specific allegations against them in the complaint and arguing that the Magistrate had issued the order mechanically, without adequate application of mind.

On the other hand, the respondent's counsel asserted that a prima facie case was made out and that the petitioners were integral to the alleged conspiracy. They added that detailed reasoning is not required at the stage of process issuance, contending that the allegations warranted a trial where the evidence could be fully examined.

Justice Oswal meticulously reviewed the case documents, particularly the allegations against the petitioners. The Court noted that the respondent alleged a conspiracy where Dass's family members, including the petitioners, supported and facilitated the second marriage, fully aware that it violated the law.

The Court observed that while there is no requirement for a detailed, formal order when issuing a process under Sections 190 and 204 CrPC, the Magistrate must nonetheless show sufficient indication of having applied judicial mind to the facts presented.

Referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others”, (2015) which established that application of mind is essential at this stage, even if explicit reasoning is not mandated Justice Oswal remarked,

“.. No formal or speaking or reasoned order is required at the stage under Section 190/204 Cr. P.C. but there must be sufficient indication in respect of application of mind by the Magistrate while issuing process against the accused”.

The court added,

“The learned Magistrate has recorded its satisfaction in respect of commission of offence and has issued the process against the petitioners though it is true that detailed reasons are not mentioned in the order, which otherwise are not required to be recorded in the order in respect of issuance of process”.

In addition the Court drew upon Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar 2019, where the Supreme Court cautioned against appreciating evidence at the initial stages. The Court emphasized that determining whether the petitioners abetted the alleged bigamy is a factual question to be adjudicated during the trial, not at the process issuance stage. Issues of evidence and credibility should be reserved for trial and cannot be prematurely assessed under Section 482 CrPC the court stated and reiterated,

“In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties”

With these observations, the High Court upheld the process issued by the Magistrate and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Beero Devi Vs Kanchan Devi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 303

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment