Mukhtar Zaidi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supreme Court, 18 April 2024)
Background
The case arose from an FIR lodged against Mukhtar Zaidi and others under Sections 147, 342, 323, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging serious offences including attempt to murder. Following investigation, the police filed a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), concluding that no evidence could substantiate the allegations. The informant, dissatisfied with the investigation, filed a Protest Petition accompanied by affidavits from himself and four witnesses, asserting that the investigation was unfair and that the case diary was completed without proper witness statements.
Procedural History
The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Aligarh, rejected the police report and, after considering the Protest Petition and supporting affidavits, took cognizance of the case and summoned the accused under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC. Mukhtar Zaidi challenged the summoning order before the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the proceedings. The High Court dismissed his application, upholding the CJM's order.
Key Legal Issue
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CJM was correct in taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC based on additional material (affidavits) submitted with the Protest Petition, or whether the Magistrate was required to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC and follow the procedure in Chapter XV of CrPC.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that when a Magistrate considers not just the Protest Petition but also additional evidence (such as affidavits) submitted by the complainant, the proper course is to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC. In such cases, the Magistrate must follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter XV, which includes examining the complainant and witnesses on oath, before issuing process against the accused.
The Court noted that the CJM, having relied on affidavits and recorded satisfaction that a prima facie case was made out, should have proceeded under Section 200 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that the failure to do so amounted to a procedural error. The Court clarified that the right to file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC is not taken away even if the Magistrate does not direct that the Protest Petition be treated as a complaint.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of both the High Court and the CJM. The matter was remitted to the Magistrate with liberty to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and proceed in accordance with law under Chapter XV of CrPC. The Court made it clear that it had not commented on the merits of the case, and the Magistrate should make an independent decision.
Significance
This judgment clarifies the procedural distinction between taking cognizance on a police report and on a complaint, especially when additional evidence is introduced with a Protest Petition. It reinforces the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fair process.
Citation: Mukhtar Zaidi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., [2024] 4 S.C.R. 655 : 2024 INSC 316, Criminal Appeal No. 2134 of 2024, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 18 April 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments