IN COMPLIANCE TO PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE MARKING SCHEME

GEETA INSTITUTE OF LAW

AFFILIATED TO KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

Assignment on “Complaint to Magistrate - Section- 200”

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. Sandeep Saini Nitin Verma

(ASSISTANT PROFESSOR) B.A.LLB (Hons.)

5.5th Semester
INTRODUCTION:

Complaint to Magistrate can be plainly understood in the sense that, it is an allegation made
against another person such as the offender to the Magistrate. According to section 2(d) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) 1973 "complaint" means any allegation made orally or
in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his acting under this Code, that some person,
whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a Police report.
However, Section 200 and others of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not necessarily
require the complainant to present a written complaint personally to the magistrate. If such
complaint is made on writing, the complainant or the witnesses are need not be examined by
the Magistrate. Thus, complaint to magistrate is charge of offences level against a person or
group, etc to the magistrate, in which the magistrates could take cognizance of the offences.
Cognizance of an offence by a magistrate implies that the magistrate has applied his mind to
the offence alleged in the complaint with a view to take further proceedings necessary for the
trial of the accused person. Basically, complaint to magistrate dealt with section 200-203 of the
Cr.P.C.

EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT (Section 200 of Cr.P.C):

A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the
complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be
reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the
Magistrate:

Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the
complainant and the witnesses-

a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court
has made the complainant; or

b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate undersection
192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under
section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not
re-examine them.
Section 200 lays down the preliminary procedure which a Magistrate shall follow on receiving
a complaint. under this section it is obligatory to examine the complainant and the witnesses
and a summary dismissal without examining them is not legal.

The provisions of this section apply to cases when the Magistrates take cognizance of an
offence. The Magistrate should take the cognizance of the offence first and thereafter proceed
to examine the complainant and his witnesses on oath. It is only after this stage that summons
may be issued if necessary.

The Magistrate must give the complainant an opportunity to be heard in person or through his
pleader. An omission to examine the complainant and his witnesses by the Magistrate as
required by this section is a serious irregularity, as such prejudice maybe caused to the accused.
having done so, he may order an inquiry under Section 202 or dismiss the complaint under
Section 203 if he finds that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed with the case. In a
significant decision handed down by the High Court of Kerala in Pramod vs C.K. Velayudhan,
it has been held that Criminal court will not get any jurisdiction to proceed against a person at
the mere sight of the details on the docket-sheet or the cause-title. No Court shall act upon the
sole tag, label or the badge veiled on the cause-title no shall it be carried away by the prints
and dots on the veil of cause-title. In other words, the Court is bound to unveil the complaint,
feel the texture of its contents and test the criminality because criminality lies not on how a
person is Christiane at the cause-title, but how he has acted, as per the contents of the complaint.

In Karnataka High Court in Durvasa v. Chandrakala, has held that non-examination of

complainant upon oath is a mere irregularity and does not vitiate the proceedings under this
section. Where the accused person himself voluntarily appears before the Magistrate to answer
a charge, his examination on oath becomes immaterial.

The High Court of Karnataka in V.S. Joshi vs. N.G. Bhat Chitrigi held that order issuing
process could not be set aside merely on hypothetical ground where the Magistrate after taking
notice of accusations made in complaint, had proceeded to record sworn statements of the
complainant and witnesses. This clearly showed that he had taken cognizance of the offence.
There is difference of opinion about maintain of joint complaint under this section 200 of the
code. Madras, Calcutta and Kerala High Courts hold that joint complaint is not permissible but
Allahabad and Manipur High Courts hold a contrary view. The High Court of Kerala took the
view that the word complainant‟ having been used in Section 200 in singular form clearly
suggests that a joint complaint by two or more complainants is not maintainable under this
section, but the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to treat the complaint as if filed by one of the
complainants at their option, and proceed with the case. Since no such option was exercised by
the complainant in the instant case, cognizance taken by Magistrate was vitiated. Similar
opinion has been expressed by the High Court of Madras in Narayan Swami v. Egappa. But
the Allahabad High Court has taken a contrary view and held that applying the provisions of
Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, the word “complainant” would also include its plural
form i.e. complainants.

In Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P., it has been held that in spite of availability of Civil
remedy, criminal case is not barred by Section 200, Cr.P.C as the two remedies are not mutually
exclusive but they are clearly co-extensive. The Court in this case observed that when a civil
remedy is available, filing of a criminal complaint is not automatically barred because of the
availability of that remedy and each case has to be decided on the basis of its peculiar facts and
circumstances to find out whether on facts of the case a criminal offence was made out or not.
In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation
for the delay in lodging the complaint or report. Delay in filing complaint affords opportunity
to the complainant to make fabrication. Therefore, if there has been delay in either filing F.I.R.
before the Police or complaint before the Court, the Courts always view allegations with
suspicion and insist for satisfactory explanation for delay in filing F.I.R./complaint. Mere
statement by the complainant that police did not act is not a satisfactory explanation for
justifying delay in filing of the complaint before the Magistrate.

In Gurudas Balkrishna Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate Goa, the applicant filed a complaint on
31st July, 1992 but the Magistrate has not even recorded his statement for verification of the
complaint for several months. It was held that verification under section 200 must be done as
soon as practicable. The words “at once” were deleted from section 200 were deleted from
section 200 because the legislature thought it fit that instead of giving a mandate by words „at
once‟ which would not be capable of any relaxation, it is better to rely on the discretion of the
Magistrate. But that does not permit the Magistrate to delay the verification for months
together. The court ordered the Magistrate to record the evidence of complainant and witnesses,
if any, within a week from the date of its order.
PROCEDURE BY MAGISTRATE NOT COMPETENT TO TAKE
COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE (Section 201 of Cr.P.C):

The section mentions that, If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to
take cognizance of the offence, he shall:

a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an
endorsement to that effect;

b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court.

In Rajendra Singh Vs State of Bihar, the court acquitted the accused on the ground that it had
no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint. It was held that the order of acquittal was
illegal because the court ought to have returned the complaint for presentation to the proper
court instead of acquitting the accused.

In Rakesh Vs State of Rajasthan, in this case it held that the learned Judicial Magistrate had
no jurisdiction and was not competent to try the accused for an offence under Section 7/16(1)
of the Act by virtue of Section 16A of the Act, the only course open to him was to return the
complaint to the Food Inspector under Section 201 of the Cr. P.C. for presentation to the proper
court with an endorsement to that effect. Thereafter, it will be for the Food Inspector to file the
complaint in the court having jurisdiction.

POSTPONEMENT OF ISSUE OF PROCESS (SECTION 202 OF Cr.P.C)

1) Any Magistrate , on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take

cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit,
postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or
direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit,
for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:

Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, -

a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by
the Court of Session; or

b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses
present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.
2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of
witnesses on oath:

“Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable
exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his
witnesses and examine them on oath”

3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he
shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge
of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.

The object of this section is three-fold:

 To ascertain the facts constituting offence.

 To prevent abuse of process resulting in wastage of time of the Court and
harassmentto the accused;
 To help the Magistrate to judge if there is sufficient ground calling for
investigationand for proceeding with the case.

The object of an investigation under Section 202 of the Code is to enable the Magistrate to
form an opinion as to whether the process should be issued or not, and to remove from his mind
hesitation that he may have felt upon the mere perusal of the complaint and the consideration
of the complainant’s evidence on oath.

The function of the Magistrate holding a preliminary inquiry is only to be satisfied that a prima
facie case is made out against the accused on the materials placed before him by the
complainant. At this stage the Magistrate has to see whether there is evidence in support of the
allegations made in the complaint and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a
conviction. In this section of the code the Magistrate has discretion to postpone the issue of
process against the person complained against if he thinks fit but in that even he as to record
its reasons in writing. Its reason should include the indication of application of his mind to the
facts of the case in respect of which he considers inquiry necessary. Just a mere direction to a
police office to enquire into the matter and to report is no compliance with the provisions of
this section. Therefore, if the records do not show the reasons because of which the Magistrate
postponed the issue of process the order is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
In an investigation or inquiry under Section 202 the accused has no say in the matter at that
stage.

The Patna High Court opined in the case of Anil Kumar Shah Vs Nagendra Singh that while
under the old code investigation under Section 202 was with a view to ascertaining truth or
falsehood of the complaint the scope of inquiry under Section 202 of the new code is much
wider and its purpose is for deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
The scope of the inquiry under section 202 is extremely limited-only to the ascertainment of
the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (i) on the materials placed by
the complainant before the court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima
facie case for the issue of process has been made out and (iii) for deciding the question purely
from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any Defense that the
accused may have. In proceedings under section 202, the accused has got absolutely no locus
standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued
against him or not. Where the High Court quashed a complaint for bigamy undersection 494
of Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court set aside the quashing order holding that the High
Court exceeded the scope of enquiry contemplated under section 202 in going into sufficiency
of evidence for conviction. During enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has to satisfy himself simply
whether a prima facie case has been made out, so as to put the proposed accused on regular
trial. The aim of an investigation under Section 202 of the Code is not to initiate a fresh case
on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon
a complaint before him. A judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis
of police report and after the appearance of the accused cannot order fresh investigation by the
police.

Section 202(1) does not require a magistrate to hold an inquiry whenever it appears to him that
the offence complained of is triable exclusively by a court of session and that way section
202(2) does not control and govern Section 202(1). In case where a complaint is filed not by
the public servant and where the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the
Magistrate should follow the provision to Section 202(2) and call upon the complainant to
produce all his witnesses and examine them. In conducting the examination, the magistrate has
no power to prescribe or limit the number of witnesses for the purposes for which they have
got to be examined. It is for the complainant to choose and append a list of witnesses to the
complaint. Therefore, the right of the complainant with regard to the witnesses mentioned in
the list cannot be interfered with by the court nor his right to give up some of them can be
interfered with by the court. It is open to the complainant to give up some of the witnesses and
those witnesses that were so given up can no more answer the description of “his witnesses”
within the meaning of that expression as occurring in the proviso to Section 202(2).

The provision to Section 202(2) is intended to enable the accused to have an overall picture of
the case against him and to afford him a full and fair opportunity of defending himself. This
has been held to be mandatory. Some High Courts held that non-compliance with the provision
to Section 202(2) cannot be treated as “irregularity” that could be cured under Section 465. It
was also opined that non-compliance was likely not only to mislead the accused but also to end
in failure of justice. An inquiry under Section 202 is not in the nature of a trial for there can be
in law only one trial in respect of any offence and a trial can commence only after process is
issued to the accused. The said proceedings are not strictly proceedings between the
complainant and the accused. A person against whom a complaint is filed does not become an
accused until it is decided to issue process against him. The power to order police investigation
under Section 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section
202(1). Investigation under Section 156(3) is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage and the
investigation under Section 202(1) at the post-cognizance stage when the Magistrate is in
seizure of the case. Section 202 of the Code comes in at a stage when some evidence has been
collected by the Magistrate in proceedings under Chapter XV of the Code, but the same is
deemed insufficient to take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a
situation the Magistrate is empowered under Section 202 of the Code to direct within the limits
circumstance by that Section, an investigation for the purpose of deciding whether or not there
is sufficient ground for proceeding. It may be noted that the words if he thinks fit under Section
202 of the code, give full discretion to the Magistrate to direct investigation or to decide to
make an inquiry. The discretion, however, would be exercised judicially. Once the Magistrate
has exercised his discretion, it is not for the High Court, or even the Supreme Court, to
substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a
view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately
end in conviction of the accused.

DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT (SECTION 203 OF Cr.P.C):

The Section mention that, “If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the
complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under
Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he
shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reason for so
doing.” As per Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it requires the Magistrate before
taking cognizance of a case to apply his mind on the basis of statements made by the
complainant and his witnesses and the result of the inquiry/investigation under Section 202, if
any, whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the case in absence of such ground,
he shall dismiss the complaint under this section and briefly record his reasons for doing so. In
other word, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complaint and of the
witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the
Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the
complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.

The expression sufficient ground in this Section points exclusively to the facts which the
complainant brings to the knowledge of the Magistrate and to their establishing a prima facieses
against the accused. In exercising his discretionary power of summary dismissal of the
Complaint, the Magistrate should not allow himself to be influenced by considerations
altogether apart from the facts adduced by the complainant in support of the charge, nor by a
consideration of the motive by which the complainant is accused.

The Magistrate cannot refuse to issue the process unless the evidence led before him is self-
contradictory or intrinsically untrustworthy and is insufficient to make out a prima facie case.
The decision whether there is sufficient ground must be reached by the exercise of discretion
based upon judicial consideration. A Magistrate should not dismiss a complaint without hearing
the witnesses of the complainant present in Court. The reasons for dismissing a complaint
should be based on the inference of facts arising from or discovered by the complaint, the
examination of the complaint, and the investigation, if any, made under Section 202.

A Magistrate may dismiss a complaint—

(i) If he finds that no offence has been committed upon the statement of the complaint;

(ii) If he distrusts the statement made by the complainant; and

(iii) If he finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding basing on the results of
inquiry as provided by Section 202.

It should be possible for the accused at this stage to satisfy the Magistrate that there was no
case at all against him and that he can even recall the order issuing process under Section 204
and dismiss the complaint under Section 203. A magistrate cannot dismiss a complaint unless
he finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy.
The process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case.

It has been decided by the Patna High Court in Ram Narayan Vs Pan Chand Jain, that an order
of dismissal under Section 203 is neither an order of discharge nor an order of acquittal land
therefore a second complaint after the dismissal of the first one is not barred under this section.
However, such a second complaint may be entertained only in exceptional circumstances such
as the first complaint having been dismissed because of incomplete record of facts or
misunderstanding about the nature of the complaint or the new facts adduced in the second
complaint not be placed before the Magistrate in the first complaint despite due diligence.

The Supreme Court in Rajinder Prasad Vs Bashir, has held that where no inquiry could be held
under Section 203(2) by the committal Magistrate in deciding the inclusion of offence or
implement of accused, the trial Magistrate could take recourse to provisions of Sections 190 to
199 Cr.P.C for addition of offence and implement of accused.

CONCLUSION:

Complaint to Magistrate is a Procedural Guidelines under which a complainant can be made

directly to the Magistrate apart from filing a First Information Report (FIR) to the police against
an offender. Complaint to Magistrate dealt with the proceeding which follow the taking of the
cognizance by the magistrate and which are preparatory to the trial of the case. Section 200-
203 would found useful for weeding out false, frivolous and vexatious complaints aimed at
harassing the accused person. As everyday of experience of the courts shows that many
complaints are ill founded, and it is necessary therefore that they should at the very start be
carefully considered and those which are not on their face convincing should be subjected to
further scrutiny so that only in substantial cases should the court summon the accused person,
this layout has be inserted in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the scope to distinguish
unfounded from genuine cases so as to root them out at the very outset without calling upon
the party complained against.