The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot consider a protest petition against their previous decision to take cognizance.

The Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal were handling an appeal that contested the decision made by a Single Judge of the High Court in response to a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In this particular instance, an FIR was filed based on the initiative of Dhananjay Singh, who has since passed away. The charges in the FIR pertained to offenses under Sections 326, 307, along with Sections 34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The accusation in the FIR was leveled against Gupteshwar Singh, and the appellants were implicated on the grounds that they were present at the crime scene.

On January 3, 2005, a charge sheet was filed against all four accused individuals. Following the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated November 29, 2006, the Crime Investigation Department conducted a re-investigation and subsequently submitted a charge sheet on March 31, 2009.

On April 9, 2009, the Chief Judicial Magistrate acknowledged the charges based on the CID's charge sheet filed on March 31, 2009, against the accused Gupteshwar Singh. The charges pertained to offenses punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The father of the second respondent attempted to file a protest petition, alleging collusion between the CID and the current appellants. The purpose of the protest petition was to object to the order dated November 3, 2009, which had taken cognizance only against one accused, Gupteshwar Singh.

Subsequently, on November 3, 2009, the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued another order taking cognizance against the appellants. This decision was contested in the High Court. The High Court, drawing upon the precedent set in the case of Nupur Talwar vs. CBI and Anr., dismissed the appellant's petition seeking to quash the order.

The bench noted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate entertained the protest petition against the mentioned order, and subsequently, on November 3, 2009, took cognizance against the appellants. The bench emphasized that such a course of action was impermissible because the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot entertain a protest petition against his earlier order of taking cognizance. The order on November 3, 2009, was considered a modification of the earlier order dated April 9, 2009, which was deemed impermissible as there is no authority vested in the Judicial Magistrate to alter a prior order of taking cognizance.

The Supreme Court pointed out that, in citing the case of Nupur Talwar vs. CBI and Anr., the High Court had noted the established principle that, depending on the circumstances, the court can proceed based on a protest petition and adhere to the procedures outlined in Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the case at hand involved a distinct situation where the protest petition was filed against an order taking cognizance, presenting a different legal context.

In light of the considerations mentioned, the bench granted approval for the appeal.

Case: Ramakant Singh & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 3484 OF 2023.

Read/Download Order