LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

S.R. SUKUMAR versus S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 1105 · Decided: 02-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 1105 
S.RSUKUMAR 
v. 
S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 2015) 
JULY2, 2015 
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
s. 200- Examination of complainant- Object of - Held: C 
Is to find out whether com,.>laint is justifiable or is vexatious. 
ss. 200, 202, 203, 204 - Complaint -Amendment of-
Cognizance of offence - In the instant case, complaint filed 
on 9.5.2007 -
Statement of complainant recorded on D 
18.5.2007 and further recorded on 23.5.2007 - Next day, 
respondent-complainant filed an application seeking 
amendment to the complaint - Magistrate al/owe<j the 
amendment and took cognizance of the offence and issued 
process on 21.6.2007 - Grievance of appellant in petition E 
for quashing summons was that Magistrate took cognizance 
of offence for the first time on 18.5.2007 and on 24.5.2007 
allowed the amendment application and took cognizance 
again for the second time and thus cognizance was taken F 
twice which was not permissible - High Court refused to 
interfere with the order of Magistrate and dismissed the 
petition - Propriety - Held: It is wrong to say that Magistrate 
took cognizance of offence even on 18. 5. 2007 when the 
statement of complainant was recorded in part and even when G 
Magistrate had not applied his judicial mind -Although there 
is no specific provision in the Code to amend either a 
complaint or a petition filed under the provisions of the Code, 
but the petitions seeking such amendment to correct curable 
1105 
H 
1106. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
infirmities can be allowed even in respect of complaints - If 
the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple 
infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment 
and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be 
caused to the other side, the Court may permit such an 
B amendment to be made -
Magistrate allowed the 
amendment application mainly on the ground that no 
cognizance was taken of the complaint before the disposal 
of amendment application and no prejudice would have 
caused to the appellant - High Court rightly refused to 
C interfere with the order of Magistrate. 
ss.200, 202, 203, 204 - Procedure to be followed by 
Magistrate for taking cognizance of offence - Discussed. 
o 
Taking cognizance of offence - Held: Means the 
magistrate must have judicially applied the mind to the 
contents of the complaint and indicates that magistrate takes 
judicial notice of the offence .. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 200 Cr.P.C. provides for the 
procedure for Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence 
on complaint. The language in Section 200 Cr.P.C. "a 
F Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint 
shall examine upon oath the complainant and the 
witnesses present, if any ... " clearly suggests that for 
taking cognizance of an offence on complaint, the Court 
shall examine the complainant upon oath. The object of 
G examination of the complainant is to find out whether 
the complaint is justifiable or is vexatious. Merely. 
because the complainant was examined that does not 
mean that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the 
offence. Taking cognizance of an offence means the 
H Magistrate must have judicially applied the mind to the 
S. R. SUKUMAR v. S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM 
1107 
contents of the complaint and indicates that Magistrate A 
takes judicial notice of an offence. Mere presentation of 
the complaint and receipt of the same in the court does 
not mean that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of 
the offence. [Paras 8, 9] [1113-H; 1114-A-D] 
Narsingh Das Tapadia vs. Goverdhan Oas Partani 
&Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2946: 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 
171 ; Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh 
& Anr. (2012) 3 sec 64: 2012 (3) SCR 52 -
8 
relied on. 
C 
2. Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. normally three 
courses are available to the Magistrate. The Magistrate 
can either issue summons to the accused or order an 
inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. or dismiss the o 
complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Upon consideration 
of the statement of complainant and the material 
adduced at that stage if the Magistrate is satisfied that 
there are sufficient grounds to proceed, he can proceed 
to issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. E 
"Cognizance" therefore has a reference to the 
application of judicial mind by the Magistrate in 
connection with the commission of an offence and not 
merely to a Magistrate learning that some 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.