RAMESH KUMARAN & ANR. V. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO. 9142/2024):

DATE: 03/03/2025

BENCH: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

FACTS:

The Petitioners filed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them by Respondent No. 2, the Bar President of Advocates in Kodaikanal. The dispute arose when Petitioner No. 1 alleged that he was verbally abused and physically assaulted by Respondent No. 2 while walking. Following this incident, Petitioner No. 1 filed a police complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR against Respondent No. 2. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Respondent No. 2. However, the Petitioners alleged that he deliberately evaded court summons for over a year. In response to the complaint filed against him, Respondent No. 2 filed a counter-complaint against the Petitioners, leading to the registration of another FIR. The police, after investigation, closed the case, deeming it a "mistake of fact."

Despite the police closure report, Respondent No. 2 challenged the decision by filing a protest petition under Section 190 of the CrPC. The Magistrate accepted the protest petition, rejected the police’s closure report, and treated the petition as a private complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC. After recording sworn statements, the Magistrate took cognizance of the case under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(i) of the IPC, 1908. The Petitioners argued that the complaint by Respondent No. 2 was a retaliatory measure to counter the case filed against him and was not supported by any substantial evidence. However, the Respondents contended that the Magistrate had correctly exercised his authority by taking cognizance of the protest petition in accordance with the legal procedure.

ISSUES:

The main issue in this case is whether the conduct of first petitioner, stating that he will commit suicide if the FIR against the second respondent is permissible or not.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Court upheld the decision of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the case based on the protest petition filed by Respondent No. 2. It ruled that the Magistrate had correctly exercised his authority under Section 190(1)(a) and (b) of the CrPC, treating the protest petition as a private complaint and proceeding accordingly. The Court also directed Petitioner No. 1 to submit a written apology and an undertaking for his inappropriate courtroom conduct, failing which legal consequences would follow. The matter was listed for further hearing on March 7, 2025.

The Court emphasized that under Section 173 of the CrPC, a Magistrate has three options upon receiving a police report: (i) dropping the case if no sufficient ground exists, (ii) taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) based on the police report, or (iii) taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) based on a private complaint, even if the police report suggests closure. The Court noted that the Magistrate had properly exercised the third option, treating the protest petition as a private complaint, recording sworn statements, and taking cognizance, making the proceedings legally valid. 

Furthermore, the Court clarified that even after a final police report is accepted and the accused is discharged, a Magistrate retains the power to take cognizance of an offence based on a protest petition or a fresh complaint on similar allegations. Since the Magistrate had not accepted the police's closure report and had followed the proper legal process in proceeding with the protest petition, the order was deemed just and proper. The Court also addressed the misconduct of Petitioner No. 1, stressing the importance of maintaining decorum in judicial proceedings and warning of legal consequences if he failed to issue an apology and undertaking.

ANALYSIS:

The Court's decision underscores the Magistrate's discretionary authority in dealing with protest petitions and private complaints under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). By reaffirming that a Magistrate can reject a police closure report and take cognizance based on a protest petition, the ruling reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that genuine grievances are not dismissed merely because the police do not find merit in them. This decision also highlights the importance of judicial independence in determining the validity of criminal allegations, emphasizing that a complainant still has legal recourse even when law enforcement decides to close an investigation. The Court’s endorsement of the Magistrate’s decision ensures that procedural safeguards remain intact, preventing possible misuse of executive discretion in criminal proceedings.

Additionally, the ruling addresses the ethical and professional responsibilities of legal practitioners by reprimanding Petitioner No. 1 for his inappropriate courtroom conduct. The Court took a strong stance against coercive tactics and threats used to influence judicial decisions, ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted with dignity and respect. By directing the petitioner to submit a written apology and undertaking, the Court reinforced the importance of maintaining decorum in judicial forums. This aspect of the judgment serves as a precedent against intimidation of the judiciary, reaffirming that courts must function independently and without undue pressure from litigants, regardless of their professional status.