The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that the issuance of process under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a mechanical formality but a judicial act requiring deliberate evaluation of the complaint’s veracity. This ruling underscores the magistrate’s duty to prevent criminal law from being weaponized in civil disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Dattatraya Gajanan Patil, alleged that on 23 November 2001, respondents No.2 and 3 entered his compound, destroyed fruit-bearing trees and flower plants with a sickle, damaged his hut by kicking its walls and pulling corrugated sheets, and threatened to kill him. He filed a non-cognisable complaint with police and later a summary criminal case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alibaug.
Procedural History
- 2001: Complaint registered as Non-Cognisable Complaint No.674 of 2001
- 28 November 2001: Summary Criminal Case No.1846 of 2001 filed before Magistrate
- 2001: Magistrate recorded complainant’s statement and directed police inquiry
- 2003: Respondents filed Criminal Revision Application No.42 of 2003 before Sessions Court
- 7 January 2006: Sessions Court quashed process issued against respondents
- 2006: Applicant filed Criminal Revision Application No.98 of 2006 before Bombay High Court
- 2026: Matter heard after 20-year pendency; respondents failed to appear
Relief Sought
The applicant sought restoration of the Magistrate’s order issuing process against respondents under Sections 504, 506, and 427 read with Section 34 IPC, arguing that the Sessions Court erred in quashing it without proper grounds.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Magistrate’s issuance of process under Section 200 CrPC can be sustained when the complaint contains material inconsistencies, contradicts prior statements, and lacks corroborative evidence, particularly in the context of a long-standing civil dispute.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant contended that the Sessions Court improperly substituted its own view for that of the Magistrate, who had already recorded the complainant’s statement and reviewed the inquiry report. He relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to argue that the Magistrate’s prima facie satisfaction is sufficient to issue process, and that revisional courts should not reappreciate evidence at this stage.
For the Respondent/State
The State and appointed advocate supported the Sessions Court’s view, emphasizing that the complainant’s version varied materially between his police complaint and court deposition. They cited K. Srinivasulu Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh to argue that where a complaint is inherently unreliable, the Magistrate’s failure to apply judicial mind renders the process order unsustainable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the duty of the Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC to assess the truthfulness of allegations before issuing process. It held that while the Magistrate is not required to conduct a full trial or record detailed reasons, the order must reflect a conscious application of mind to the material on record.
"The act of issuing process/summons is thus not an empty formality, but a serious judicial function requiring conscious and reasoned consideration."
The Court noted that the complainant’s account differed significantly across three documents: the police complaint, the court complaint, and his sworn testimony before the Magistrate. The inquiry report, which formed the basis of the Magistrate’s decision, contained no evidence of damage to trees or walls. Further, a cross-complaint had been filed by the respondents, and a prior civil judgment had already favored them in the underlying land dispute.
The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the Sessions Court relied on extraneous material. It found that the Sessions Judge’s conclusions were drawn from the same inquiry report and documents available to the Magistrate. Crucially, the applicant failed to annex the order of issuance of process or the Section 202 inquiry report - documents essential for meaningful revisional review.
The Court emphasized that Section 397 CrPC limits revisional jurisdiction to correcting illegality, irregularity, or perversity. No such error was found. The Sessions Court’s decision was not an error of law but a legitimate exercise of judicial discretion.
The Verdict
The applicant’s revision was dismissed. The Court held that the Magistrate’s issuance of process under Section 200 CrPC cannot stand where the complaint is internally inconsistent, unsupported by evidence, and arises from a resolved civil dispute. The Sessions Court’s order quashing the process was legally sound.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Scrutiny Is Mandatory Before Issuing Process
- Practitioners must ensure complaints filed under Section 200 CrPC are internally consistent and supported by documentary or witness evidence
- Magistrates must not issue process based on vague, contradictory, or speculative allegations, even if the offence appears serious
- Revisional courts will uphold quashing where the Magistrate’s order reveals no application of mind
Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Cases
- A pending or resolved civil dispute between parties is a critical factor in assessing the bona fides of a criminal complaint
- Courts will view with suspicion complaints filed after civil adjudication, especially where the complainant’s version changes over time
- The existence of a cross-complaint further weakens the credibility of the criminal allegation
Omission of Key Documents Is Fatal to Revision
- Applicants seeking revision under Section 397 CrPC must annex all material relied upon by the Magistrate, including the Section 202 inquiry report and the order of issuance of process
- Failure to do so deprives the revisional court of the basis to evaluate legality, and may result in dismissal on procedural grounds alone
