Supreme Court: Protest Petition to be Treated as Private Complaint

In a significant legal pronouncement, the Supreme Court has ruled that if a Magistrate, based on additional evidence presented through a protest petition, takes cognizance of an offence and issues summons to an accused, the protest petition must be treated as a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). This decision, authored by Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, overturns the findings of both the High Court and Trial Court, which had refused to treat the protest petition as a private complaint.

The case in question involves the rejection of a police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and the subsequent issuance of summons to an accused by the Magistrate, prompted by a protest petition filed by the informant. The informant alleged that the closure report resulted from inadequate police investigation. While the Magistrate recorded satisfaction to take cognizance of several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the protest petition, it was directed that the case would continue as a State case under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., rather than as a complaint case.

The appellant, aggrieved by this decision, approached the Supreme Court after the High Court dismissed their challenge under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

During arguments before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that both the Magistrate and the High Court erred in not treating the protest petition as a private complaint. It was argued that when the Magistrate relied on additional material presented through the protest petition, the only appropriate course was to treat it as a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

In response, the State argued that the Magistrate had not considered any additional evidence filed with the protest petition and had relied solely on material collected during the investigation. The State contended that the Magistrate's satisfaction to reject the police report and take cognizance fell within their jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court, siding with the appellant's contention, held that the Magistrate should have treated the protest petition as a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and followed the procedures outlined in Chapter XV of the Code. The Court cited its previous ruling in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of UP, stating that if a Magistrate considers additional documents along with a protest petition, they cannot take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., but must proceed under Section 200 as a complaint case.

"If a Protest Petition fulfils the requirements of a complaint, the Magistrate may treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and deal with the same as required under Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code," the Court reiterated, referring to its earlier decision.

Given that the Magistrate had indeed taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the appellant based on additional documents presented in the protest petition, the Court held that the Magistrate should have followed the procedures prescribed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. for private complaints.

Additionally, the Court clarified that the Magistrate also had the discretion to reject the protest petition and all accompanying material. However, this rejection does not impede the complainant's right to file a fresh petition under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

The appeal was allowed with the observation that it remained open for the Magistrate to treat the protest petition as a complaint and proceed accordingly under the law as laid down in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.