Taking Cognizance Of A Private Complaint Under S.200 CrPC: Karnataka High Court Sets Out Procedure For Magistrates To Follow

A single-judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar in its order dated July 22, said, "The cognizance taking procedure to be followed may be set out as follows:-

(i) After the presentation of the complaint, the Magistrate must read the complaint and if he finds on the face of it, the commission of an offence or offences is not disclosed, he can reject or dismiss the complaint. But the Magistrate must be slow in rejecting the complaint just on reading it because if the complaint is not properly articulated, rejection of complaint may result in causing injustice to the complainant. It is also possible that intelligent drafting may give an impression that an offence has taken place, which may not be true sometimes. Therefore it is better to examine the complainant and the witnesses if necessary.

(ii) If after reading the complaint and examining the witness (if they are present and their examination is necessary) under section 200 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate arrives at the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further, he shall take cognizance of the offence and issue process to the accused.

(iii) Even after following the procedure set out in section 200, if the Magistrate is not convinced about the existence of sufficient materials to take cognizance, he may resort to hold an inquiry himself or direct investigation as contemplated under section 202.

(iv) If the Magistrate does not prima facie find materials as to the constitution of any offence after examining the complainant and witnesses (if any), he can dismiss the complaint in accordance with section 203.

(v) Resorting to procedure contemplated under section 202 is not always mandatory, it may be resorted to only in the circumstances stated in section 202. That means, cognizance may be taken or the complaint may be rejected depending upon the situation even after the stage of section 200.

(vi) It is not necessary that a Magistrate must endorse "cognizance taken" in the order sheet, but what is required is the application of mind and it must be depicted in a brief order. The decision as to the issuing process to the accused itself amounts to cognizance being taken.

(vii) Whenever an investigating police officer files a 'B' report, and the complainant wants to contest the 'B' report, the Magistrate has to follow the same procedure set out above.

Case Background:

Petitioner Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust and others had approached the court seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent filing of charge sheet in relation to offences punishable under Sections 420, 511 and 120B of IPC and section 82 of the Indian Registration Act.

Complainant B.N.Narasimha Murthy had filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. in the court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura. It was alleged that petitioners executed a lease deed on 20.6.2017 in favour of Sri Satya Sai Central Trust, i.e., the first petitioner in Crl.P.1422/2021 in respect of 37 guntas of land which is a part of his land in Sy. No. 43. He has stated that the vested interests have made attempts to swallow his property with a mala fide intention. This transaction is fraudulent. The executants of the lease deed do not have any right, title or authority over the land in Sy. No. 43. The petitioners attempted to induce the complainant and thereby laid claim on his property through the lease deed dated 20.6.2017.

Based on the complaint, the Magistrate referred the case to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter the police registered an FIR and filed a charge sheet.

The court noted that the complainant was granted 4 acres of land (4.06 acres including kharab) in Sy.No.27/1 of Chikkamudenahalli, Chikkaballapur Taluk in 1973. It appears that in the year 2013, the Tahasildar, assigned new survey numbers to some lands, and probably this was consequent to resurvey as the complainant has stated. On account of assigning new survey numbers, the complainant's land to an extent of 4 acres was given survey No.43, whereas the 37 guntas of land purchased by Loka Seva Trust came to be renumbered as Survey No.23/1. Since the petitioners were not aware of the change in survey number when they executed the lease deed on 20.06.2017, they mentioned the survey number of the leased property as 43.

The court on analysing the undisputed facts said:

"It is difficult to say that the complaint discloses offences alleged by the complainant. He has to take recourse to a civil action if really he is under the impression that his land has been included in the lease deed. It is not the case of the complainant that there is forgery, that a false document is created and that there is impersonation."

It added, "37 guntas of land belong to Loka Seva Trust, about which there is no dispute and cannot be disputed also. If in respect of that land, a lease deed was executed, it does not amount to cheating. The complainant cannot taint these uncontroverted facts with the colour of criminality. The dispute is purely civil in nature."

Accordingly, the court went on to allow the petition and quashed and set aside the FIR and charge-sheet.

Case Title: Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust And State of Karnataka

Case No: Crl.P.No.1422/2021

Date of Order: July 22, 2021

Appearance: Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli, a/w Advocate Srinivas Rao S.S, Senior Advocate K.G.Raghavan, a/w Advocate Madhukar M. Deshpande for petitioners.

Advocate B.J.Rohith & Mahesh Shetty, for R1,

Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, a/w Advocate Adinath Narde, for R2