Source: Madras High Court

Why in News?

Justice P Dhanabal observed that a magistrate cannot examine the truthfulness of a witness during the procedure under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

• Madras High Court gave this observation in the case of Ilampiraiyan v. Mr Pethi @ Thirumalai Raja and others.

What is the Background of Ilampiraiyan v. Mr Pethi @ Thirumalai Raja and others Case?

• The petitioner challenged the order of the Rajapalayam Judicial Magistrate who dismissed his private complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC.
• The petitioner was abused by police officers and was illegally kept into the police custody.
• He filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate who adjudged that there were contradictions in the statement of witness.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court stated that “At the stage of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate cannot peruse the veracity of the witnesses and the duty of the Magistrate is whether any prima facie material is available to constitute the offence or not”.
• Hence, the court set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate.

What is Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

• About:
  • Section 200 of the CrPC outlines the procedure for a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence.
  • The section begins with the requirement that any person who desires the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence must present a written complaint or information.
  • This complaint should be made to a Magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter.
  • The marginal note of Section 200 of the CrPC is “Examination of complainant”.
• Legal Framework:
  • Under this section, a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present.
  • And the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing.
  • And it shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate.
• Proviso of Section 200 of the CrPC:
  • When the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-
    • if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
    • if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192 of CrPC.
  • 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.
• Purpose:
  • This provision underscores the importance of the complainant's role in criminal proceedings.
  • The examination of the complainant is not a mere formality but serves the purpose of ensuring that there is a prima facie case proceeding with the trial.

What was the Landmark Judgment Involved in this Case?

• Mukesh Jain S/o Prem Chand v. Balachander (2005):
  • The Madras HC held that the complainant has to be read along with the sworn statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 of the CrPC and they should not be read disjunctively, since they supplement and complement each other.