MEHMOOD UL REHMAN versus KHAZIR MOHAMMAD TUNDA AND ORS.

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 841 · Decided: 31-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 4 S.C.R. 841 
MEHMOOD UL REHMAN 
v. 
KHAZIR MOHAMMAD TUN DA AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1347 of 2010 etc.) 
March 31, 2015 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) 
841 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.190(1)(a), 204 
and 482 -
Issue of process after taking cognizance of C 
offence u/s. 190(1)(a) - Application uls. 482 for quashing 
the proceedings - Rejected by High Court - In appeal, 
held: The Magistrate can proceed u/s. 204 by issuing 
process, only when he is satisfied that allegations in the 
complaint constitute an offence and when considered D 
alongwit/1 the statements recorded, would prima facie make 
the accusedalnswerab/e before the court - Application of 
mind by tha Magistrate is best demonstrated by disclosure 
of mind on the satisfaction - If there is no such indication, 
for proceeding ulss. 1901204, the High Court is bound to 
E 
invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of 
power of the Criminal Court - In the present case, there is 
no indication on the application of mind by the Magistrate 
in taking cognizance and issuing process for ti'le offence F 
u/s. 500 of Ranbir Pana/ Code - Matter remitted to the 
Magistrate for consideration afresh - Ranbir PP,nal Code, 
1932 - s. 500. 
Allowing the appeals arid remitting the matter to 
judicial Magistrate, the Court. 
G 
HELD: 1. Cognizance of an offence on con.plaint 
is taken for tile purpose of issuing process to the 
841 
H 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice 
of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has 
to be application of mind as to whether the allegations 
in the complaint when considered along with the 
statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, 
B would constitute violation of law so as to call a person 
to appear before the criminal court. It is not a 
mechanical process or matter of course. (Para 21] 
(856-F-H] 
C 
Pepsi Foods limited and Anr. v. Special Judicial 
Magistrate and Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 749: 1997 (5) Suppl. 
SCR 12; Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of 
Maharashtra (1971) 2 SCC 654: 1972 (1) SCR 571; 
Emperor v. Sourindra Mohan Chuckerbutty (1910) I.LR. 
D Vol. XXXVll, Cal. 412; Smt. Nagawwa v. Verranna 
Shivalingappa Kanjali and Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 736: 1976 
(0) Suppl. SCR 123; Kishun Singh and Ors. v. State of 
Bihar (1993) 2 SCC 16:1993 (1) SCR 31; State of WB. 
and Anr. v. Mohd. Khalid and Ors. (1995) 1 sec 684:1994 
E (6) Suppl. SCR 16; Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. v. State 
of W.B. (2000) 1 sec 722: 2000 (1) SCR 27; U.P 
Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Limited and Ors. 
(2000) 3 SCC 745: 2000 (2) SCR 566; Deputy Chief 
F Controller of Imports and Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal and 
Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 139: 
2003 (2) SCR 621; Jagdish 
Ram v. state of Rajasthan and Anr. 2004 (4) SCC 432: 
2004 (2) SCR 846; S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer 
v. Videocon International Limited and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 
G 492: 
2008 (2) SCR 36; U..P Polution control Board v. 
H 
Dr. Bhupndra Kumar Modi and Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 147: 
2008 (17) SCR 349; Bhushan Kumar and Anr. v. State 
(NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2012) 5 sec 424: 2012 (2) SCR 
696- relied on. 
MEHMOOD UL REHMAN v. KHAZIR MOHAMMAD 
843 
TUN DA 
2. The steps taken by the Magistrate u/s.190(1 )(a) A 
CrPC followed by s.204 of CrPC should reflect that the 
Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the 
statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for 
proceeding further in the matter by asking the person 
against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear B 
before the court. The Magistrate is not to act as a post 
office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint 
filed before him and issue process as a matter of 
course. There must be sufficient indication in the order 
passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the C 
allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and 
when considered along with the statements recorded 
and the result of inquiry or report of investigation u/ 
s.202 of CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before 0 
the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding 
against the accused u/s. 204 of CrPC, by issuing 
process for appearance. Application of mind is best 
demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the 
satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case E 
where the Magistrate proceeds u/ss.190/204 of CrPC, 
the High Court u/s.482 of CrPC is bound to invoke its 
inherent power in order to prevent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.