The Delhi High Court has held that when a Magistrate issues process or summons an accused under Sections 200 to 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure despite a cancellation report filed by the police, such an order is amenable to challenge in revisional jurisdiction before the Sessions Court or the High Court. The Court clarified that such an order is not merely interlocutory; it substantially affects the rights of the accused and therefore falls outside the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
The matter arose when a complainant challenged a Magistrate’s order taking cognisance of offences under Sections 354, 354(D), 323, 342, 509 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The police had submitted a cancellation report on the ground that no material was found to support the complainant’s allegations. Despite this, the Magistrate proceeded to take cognisance and issue summons to the accused. The complainant appealed against a trial court order which had set aside the Magistrate’s order.
In its judgment, the High Court observed that the Magistrate’s decision to proceed despite the cancellation report triggered criminal proceedings and directly impacted the rights of the accused. The Court held that the order cannot be treated as interlocutory because it marks the initiation of process and tangibly alters the legal position of the parties. Accordingly, it concluded that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is available in such cases.
While the police’s cancellation report ordinarily indicates no sufficient ground to proceed, the Court emphasised that a Magistrate must still apply independent judicial mind before issuing process. Where the cancellation report is filed and yet the Magistrate summons the accused, that order invites closer scrutiny. The High Court made it clear that either party — the complainant or the accused — may approach the Sessions Court or High Court under revisional jurisdiction to examine the propriety of the Magistrate’s action.
The ruling highlights the balance that must be maintained between the investigative agency’s decision to close a case and the Magistrate’s authority to take cognisance. It affirms that a cancellation report does not bind the Magistrate automatically, but the decision to proceed despite it must be justifiable and subject to review. The judgment thereby strengthens the procedural safeguards available to both the complainant and the accused in cases where the Magistrate’s action may be challenged as erroneous or unjustified.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.