Magistrate lacks the authority to consider a protest petition against its own order taking cognizance : Supreme Court
In the recent judgment of Ramakant Singh and others v. The State of Jharkhand and another, the Supreme Court clarified that a Judicial Magistrate does not have the authority to entertain a protest petition against an order taking cognizance of a final report. The case involved a Chief Judicial Magistrate who initially took cognizance against one accused for the offense of murder based on a final report submitted by the Crime Investigation Department.
Subsequently, the victim's father filed a protest petition, objecting to the Magistrate's decision not to take cognizance against other accused individuals. In response to the protest petition, the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a further order on November 3, taking cognizance against the additional accused persons. Dissatisfied with this subsequent order, the accused individuals, against whom cognizance was taken later, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, the High Court rejected their petition, citing the precedent set in Nupur Talwar vs. CBI and Anr (2012) 2 SCC 188.
The appellants argued before the Supreme Court that the Nupur Talwar case was distinguishable, as it dealt with a scenario where a Magistrate could take cognizance of a protest petition against a closure report filed by the investigating agency. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants, expressing surprise at the Magistrate entertaining a protest petition against an order taking cognizance. The Court emphasized that a Magistrate does not have the power to modify an earlier order of taking cognizance.
The Supreme Court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated November 3, 2009, amounted to a modification of the earlier order dated April 9, 2009, which was impermissible as the Magistrate lacked the authority to modify an order of taking cognizance. The Court clarified that the Nupur Talwar case addressed a different legal scenario. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the subsequent order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, thereby reinstating the original order of cognizance against the accused.