complaints of Magistrates 

Legal Section: Old law (CrPC 1973) vs. New law (BNSS 2023)

Definition of Complaint ( section 2 (d) CrPC) section 2(1)(h):

An allegations made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking/code (excludes police reports) 

Taking cognizance (section 190CrPC) section 210BNSS : 

Power of Magistrates to take cognizance of offences upon receiving a complaint.

Examination of Complainant (Section 200CrPC) Section 223 BNSS: 

Magistrate examines the complainant and witnesses an oath. 

Note: BNSS add a provision allowing an opportunity of hearing to the accused in certain contexts before process is issued 

Order for Police Investigation (Section 156(3)CrPC) Section 175(3) BNSS: 

When police refuse to life an FIR the Magistrate can order the police to register an FIR and investigat.

Postponement of issue of Process (Section 202CrPC) Section 225 BNSS: 

Magistrate can inquire into the case the mselves or disrect an investigation by police others before issuing a summons.

Dismissal of Complaint (section 203CrPC) section 226BNSS :

If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, The Megistrate dismisses the complete with brief reason recorded.

Landmark case 

Hansabai Paygude v. Anand Paygude,  

The accused was released after examination all the witnesses presented by the complainant .

Key Legal Principles Highlighted

• Requirement of a Reasoned Order: Any dismissal of a complaint must be complete in itself and state clear reasons, even if it is brief. Dismissal based on a lack of criminal intent is not legally valid at this initial stage.

• Sanction and Procedural Deferment: A complaint cannot be dismissed under Section 203 CrPC (Sec 226 BNSS) solely due to a lack of prosecution sanction required under Section 195 CrPC (Sec 215 BNSS). The proper procedure is to defer the issue of sanction until the accused appears.

• Sufficient Grounds to Proceed: If the evidence presented fails to establish a prima facie (at first sight) case against the accused, it means there are no sufficient grounds to proceed with the legal process. 

Notable Case Laws Mentioned

• Hansabai Paygude vs. Ananda Paygude: The court ruled that after an accused is released, a fresh prosecution on the same facts cannot be initiated unless new facts come to light. These new facts must have been unknown to the complainant at the time, beyond their capacity to know, or required to rectify a manifest error or miscarriage of justice.

• Sanjay Upadhyay vs. Anand Dubey: A defamation complaint filed over a newspaper publication was dismissed. The court held that the news report was published in good faith under the protection of freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution).

📚 Footnotes and Citations Listed

1. Ranmudeshwa vs. Ramayya, (1977) 2 Karnataka L.J. 374.

2. Lily Thomas vs. V.K. Izhuddin, (1974) Cr.L.J. 734.

3. Excise Inspector vs. Raghavan, 1989 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 75 (Kerala).

4. Abraham vs. M. Thomas, 1989 Cr.L.J. 705 (Kerala).

5. A. Shivapore vs. Putta Swamy, 1992 Cr.L.J. 167 (Kerala).

Law student Shalu 

5th semester 

Manu law college nichalaul