Magistrate Is Not Precluded From Taking Cognizance If A Prima Facie Case Exists: Orissa High Court Refuses To Quash Cognizance For Murder Taken On Protest Petition In Forest Officer Death Case
The Court said the case involves disputed questions of fact and the Magistrate was well within his powers to take cognizance on a protest petition treated as a complaint, even after the final report was accepted.
The Orissa High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the cognizance taken against a woman in connection with the alleged murder of her husband, a Forest Officer, observing that there existed prima facie material for the Magistrate to proceed. The cognizance had been taken under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC based on a protest petition filed by the father if the deceased, even though police had earlier submitted a final report terming the incident accidental.
A Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed, “…the law is well-settled that a Magistrate is not precluded from taking cognizance on a complaint even after accepting a final report, provided there is prima facie material to support the allegations.”
The Court added, “At this stage, the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial court. All that the Magistrate has to see is whether or not there is ‘sufficient ground for proceeding’ against the accused.”
Advocate Bishnu Prasad Pradhan appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General U.R. Jena represented the Opposite Parties.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner is one of the accused in a case involving the suspicious death of an Assistant Conservator of Forests who suffered 95% burn injuries in government quarters. Police initially registered the case under Section 285 IPC and later filed a chargesheet under Sections 285 and 304-A IPC, treating the death as accidental.
The deceased’s father filed a detailed protest petition before the Magistrate, alleging that the death was homicidal and the result of a conspiracy involving the Petitioner and others. The protest petition was accompanied by supporting affidavits, photographs, and a list of 25 witnesses.
Treating the protest petition as a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC, the Magistrate proceeded to examine the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and other witnesses under Section 202 CrPC. Upon being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. The Petitioner challenged this order under Section 482 CrPC.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court rejected the contention that cognizance could not be taken after acceptance of the final police report, and reiterated that the police conclusion does not bind a Magistrate and can independently take cognizance if the protest petition discloses a cognizable offence.
The Court noted that the protest petition contained all the elements of a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC and was rightly acted upon, stating, “If the protest petition contains the essential ingredients of a complaint as defined under Section 2(d) CrPC and discloses a prima facie case, the Magistrate's decision to treat it as such, cannot be faulted merely on technical grounds.”
The Court referred to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan (1980) where it had been held that the Magistrate is not required to conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidence meticulously, the question is whether there exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, not whether the prosecution case would ultimately succeed.
The Court added, “This Court is also conscious about the present petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of cognizance at a very preliminary stage. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process or where no prima facie case is made out..”
The Court concluded that the order of cognizance suffered from no illegality. The Bench explained,” The reading of cognizance order would reveal that the trial court had arrived at a prima facie view while taking into consideration the averments in complaint petition, the statement of the complainant U/s.200 Cr.P.C., evidence recorded U/s.202 Cr.P.C. and other material available on record. The learned court below have also recorded that there is “sufficient material” on record to proceed against the accused person as prima facie case is well made out U/s.302 and 120-B of the IPC. Therefore, it can’t be said that the Trial Court has not applied its judicial mind while taking cognizance of offence.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition but granted liberty to the Petitioner to seek discharge before the Trial Court, which was directed to consider such application on its own merits.
Cause Title: Bidyabharati Panda v. State of Odisha & Anr. (CRLMC No. 2565 of 2023)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Bishnu Prasad Pradhan
Opposite Parties: AGA U.R. Jena; Advocate Partha Sarathi Nayak
Click here to read/download Judgment
