IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2018   (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6900 of 2014)

RAJENDRA RAJORIYA      … APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

JAGAT NARAIN THAPAK AND ANOTHER    … RESPONDENT (S)

JUDGMENT   

N. V. RAMANA, J.   

1.Leave granted.    

2.  In  this  criminal  appeal  the  judgment  dated

08.07.2014,  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Madhya

Pradesh, bench at Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.

104/2013 is impugned.

3.  Appellant  herein  filed  a  complaint  before  the

jurisdictional police station under Sections 420, 467,

1

Reportable

468,  471,120B,  506  of  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860

[hereinafter  referred as  ‘IPC’  for  brevity]  and under

Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the allegations

that one Smt. Vidhyabai and others sold the disputed

land  to  respondent  no.  1  and  got  the  appellant’s

property mutated by committing fraud and forgery. It

was  further  alleged  that  the  respondents  had

threatened the appellant with dire consequence and

swore  at  them  with  filthy  language  intended  to

belittle  his  caste/tribe.  It  may  be  noted  that  the

concerned police station did not take any action on

the aforesaid complaint.   

4.  Aggrieved  by  the  inaction  of  the  police,  the

appellant  approached the  Jurisdictional  Magistrate,

Gwalior, with the same set of facts under Section 200

of Cr.P.C.

2

5.  The  Judicial  Magistrate,  1st Class,  Gwalior,  by

Order  dated  21.04.2012,  dismissed  the  aforesaid

criminal complaint on the footing that there was no

sufficient  proof  on  record  provided  by  the

appellant/complainant  to  prove  that  he  belongs  to

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the dispute

between the parties had trappings of civil nature.  

6. Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  dismissal  of  criminal

complaint,  appellant  approached Addl.  District  and

Sessions  Judge  [hereinafter  referred  as  ‘Sessions

Court’  for  brevity]  in  Criminal  Revision  No.

242/2012.  The Sessions Court, by the order dated

07.12.2012,  held that  the  complainant belonged to

Jatav  community  which  is  a  Scheduled  Caste.

Further the Sessions Court observed that the facts

narrated  portray  that  the  respondent  no.  1  in

conspiracy  with  others  had  transferred  the  land

belonging  to  the  appellant  in  an  illegal  manner.

3

Thereafter,  concluded that  the  lower  court  did  not

appreciate the facts as well as the law in a proper

manner  and  remanded  the  case  in  the  following

manner: -

This revision is allowed and order dated 21.04.2012  passed  by  Court  is  set aside and case is remanded back with a direction that if necessary after a further enquiry keeping in view the findings given in this order  ,    proper order  be  passed  with  regard  to registration  of  complaint  and  to summon  the  respondents  and  for that directed the parties to remain present  before  the  Court  below  on 20.12.2012.

(Emphasis supplied)

7. On remand of the case, Judicial  Magistrate,  vide

order dated 23.01.2013, while  taking cognizance of

the aforesaid offences under Section 420, 467, 471,

120-B of IPC and 3(1)(4) of SC/ST Act, registered the

complaint as Criminal Case No. 1576/2013 and on

23-02-2013,  learned Magistrate noted as under-

4

...the  court  is  required  to  prima  facie decide  question  of  initiating  proceeding arises  or  not.  It  is  pertinent  that  in this case learned Revisional Court has prima  facie   already  found  sufficient ground  for  initiating  proceeding against non-applicants.

(emphasis supplied)

8. In the meanwhile,  aggrieved by the remand order

dated 07.12.2012 passed by the Sessions Court and

the order of the Magistrate, dated 23.01.2013, taking

cognizance,  the  respondent  filed  revision  before  the

High  Court  being  Criminal  Revision  No.  104/2013.

By  the  impugned  judgment  dated  08.07.2014,  the

High Court allowed the revision petition and quashed

the complaint on the reason that the revisonal court

could not have taken cognizance on 23.01.2013 as the

same was in violation of Section 398 of Cr.P.C.  

 9. We  have  heard  learned  counsels  appearing  on

behalf of both the parties.

5

10.  The questions that fall for consideration are in

regard to the legality of the remand order passed by

the  Sessions  Court  and  the  order  of  the  learned

Magistrate taking cognizance thereafter. As the High

Court has dealt with the validity of both the orders, we

would like to take up the same  in seriatum starting

with legality of the remand order.

11.  The  respondent  contends  that  the  learned

Sessions Judge could not have observed on merits as

it amounted to taking cognizance of the matter. Such

contentions although seems attractive,  but  must  be

rejected for reason that the revisional court only had

provided reasons for ordering further enquiry under

Section 398 of Cr.P.C and the observations provided

on merit  cannot be said to have an effect  of  taking

cognizance in this case.

12.  At the outset, before we decide the legality of

the remand order, we are required to determine the

6

scope of criminal revision under Section 397 read with

Section  398  of  Cr.P.C.  It  would  be  appropriate  to

reproduce Sections 397 and 398 of Cr.P.C herein.

Section  397.  Calling  for  records  to exercise powers of revision.

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding  before  any  inferior  Criminal Court  situate  within  its  or  his  local jurisdiction  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying itself  or  himself  as  to  the  correctness, legality  or  propriety  of  any  finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released  on  bail  or  on  his  own  bond pending the examination of the record.   Explanation- All  Magistrates  whether Executive  or  Judicial,  and  whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall  be  deemed  to  be  inferior  to  the Sessions  Judge  for  the  purposes  of  this sub- section and of section 398.

7

Section 398. Power to order inquiry.

On  examining  any  record  under  section 397  or  otherwise,  the  High  Court  or  the Sessions  Judge  may  direct  the  Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the  Magistrates  subordinate  to  him  to make,  and  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate may  himself  make  or  direct  any subordinate  Magistrate  to  make,  further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed  under  section  203  of Sub-Section (4) of section 204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged:

Provided  that  no  Court  shall  make  any direction under this section for inquiry into the  case  of  any  person  who  has  been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity  of  showing  cause  why  such direction should not be made.

A perusal  of  the aforesaid provisions portray that  the

revisionary  power  is  exercised  either  by  the  Sessions

Court  or  by  the  High  Court  and  a  dismissal  of  the

complaint by the Magistrate under Section 203 of Cr.P.C

may be assailed in a criminal revision under Section 397

8

of  Cr.P.C.  The  ambit  of  revisional  jurisdiction  is  well

settled.  Section  397 of  Cr.P.C empowers  the  Sessions

Judge  to  call  for  and  examine  the  record  of  any

proceeding before any subordinate criminal court situate

within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself

as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,

sentence  or  order  recorded  or  passed,  and  as  to  the

regularity of any proceedings of such subordinate Court.

13.  The extent of the revisionary powers inter alia,

is provided under Section 399 read with Section 401

of Cr.P.C. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that

Section 398 has to be read along with other Sections

which are equally applicable to the revision petitions

filed before the Sessions Court. Section 398 only deals

with  a  distinct  power  to  direct  further  inquiry,

whereas  Section  397  read  with  Section  399  and

Section  401  confers  power  on  the  revisionary

authority to examine correctness, legality or propriety

9

of any findings, sentence or order. The powers of the

revisionary court have to be cumulatively understood

in  consonance  with  Sections  398,  399  and  401  of

Cr.P.C.

14.  We  may  note  that  the  High  Court,  in  the

impugned judgment, came to an erroneous conclusion

that the Sessions Court had itself taken cognizance of

the matter which may be reproduced as under-

“On bare perusal of this provision it is clear that the impugned order cannot be  passed  under  Section  398  of  the Code. The word ‘may direct’  has been used  by  the  legislation  in  this provision. It gives wide discretion to the court  to  order  further  enquiry. Sessions Court has no power to take cognizance of the offence, assess the offence and reach its own conclusion whether  there  is  ground  for proceeding  with  complaint  or  not and  further  to  direct  a  Magistrate with  regard  to  registration  of  a complaint  on  finding  a  prima facie case”.

10

15.  On a perusal of the Sessions Court judgment

(quoted supra), we are of the opinion that the Sessions

Court did not pass an order taking cognizance. The

Sessions Court order should have been construed only

as  a  remand  order  for  further  enquiry.  The

observations made by the Sessions Court were only

justification  for  a  remand  and  the  same  did  not

amount to taking cognizance. In view of the above, the

High Court clearly misconstrued the Sessions Court

order and proceeded on an erroneous footing. On the

other hand, the revisional court was also in error to

the extent of influencing the Magistrate Court to keep

the  findings  of  Sessions  Court  in  mind,  while

considering the case on remand. The misconception

created before the High Court was due to the fact that

the  remand  order  provided  discretion  for  the  trial

court  to  conduct  further  enquiry  and  thereafter

consider issuing process.  The High Court in the case

11

at hand without  appreciating the dichotomy between

taking cognizance and issuing summons, quashed the

complaint itself on wrong interpretation of law. In the

light  of  the  above,  the  impugned order  of  the  High

court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

16.  Now  coming  to  the  second  aspect  as  to  the

legality of the order of the learned Magistrate taking

cognizance  of  the  matter.  The standard required by

the Magistrate while taking cognizance is well settled

by  this  court  in  catena  of  judgments. In

Subramanian  Swamy  vs.  Manmohan  Singh  &

Another, (2012) 3 SCC 64, this Court explained the

meaning of  the  word 'cognizance'  holding that  "...In

legal parlance cognizance is taking judicial notice by the

court  of  law,  possessing  jurisdiction,  on  a  cause  or

matter presented before it so as to decide whether there

is  any  basis  for  initiating  proceedings  and

determination of the cause or matter judicially". We may

12

note that the Magistrate while taking cognizance has

to  satisfy  himself  about  the  satisfactory  grounds  to

proceed  with  the  complaint  and  at  this  stage  the

consideration should not be whether there is sufficient

ground for conviction. It may not be out of context to

note  that  at  the  stage  of  taking  cognizance,  the

Magistrate  is  also  not  required  to  record  elaborate

reasons  but  the  order  should  reflect  independent

application of mind by the Magistrate to the material

placed before him.

17.  On  a  perusal  of  the  order  of  the  learned

Magistrate taking cognizance, it is apparent that the

learned Magistrate  observes that  the Sessions court

has already made out a prima facie case. Such finding

would be difficult  to sustain as the revisional court

only  observed  certain  aspects  in  furtherance  of

remanding the  matter.  Such observations could not

have been made by the Magistrate as he was expected

13

to  apply  his  independent  mind  while  taking

cognizance.  In  the  case  on  hand,  we  recognize  the

limitation on the appellate forum to review subjective

satisfaction of the Magistrate while taking cognizance,

but such independent satisfaction unless reflected in

the  order  would  make  it  difficult  to  be  sustained.

There is no dispute that Justice should not only be

done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen

to  be  done.  It  is  wrought  in  our  constitutional

tradition that we imbibe both substantive fairness as

well as procedural fairness under our criminal justice

system, in the sense of according procedural fairness,

in  the  making  of  decisions  which  affect  rights,

interests and legitimate expectations, subject only to

the  clear  manifestation  of  a  contrary  statutory

intention.

18.  On  a  different  note,  we  may  note  that  the

Magistrates across India have been guided on number

14

of occasions by concrete precedents of this Court to

exercise utmost caution while applying their judicious

mind in this regard. Unfortunately, we may note that

number of cases which are brought before us reflects

otherwise.

19.  Our attention was drawn to the fact that a civil

court subsequently declared the sale deed executed by

Smt. Vidhyabai and others in favour of Jagat Narain

Thapak as null and void. Further we are apprised of

observations  made  by  the  Sessions  Court  on  the

merits of the case. But we are not inclined to go into

those issues.

20.  In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and

the impugned judgment is set aside. Accordingly, the

complaint be considered by trial court afresh. Before

parting  with  this  case,  we  may  clarify  that

the   trial   court  is directed to proceed with the case

15

uninfluenced by anyobservations made by this Court

for the purpose of deciding the instant appeal.

………………………….J.                                                   (N. V. Ramana)

….……………………...J.                                                      (S. Abdul Nazeer) New Delhi, February 23, 2018.

16