In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the limitations of a Judicial Magistrate’s authority in handling protest petitions. The ruling, delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, emerged from a case involving a Chief Judicial Magistrate who initially took cognizance of one accused for murder based on a final report by the Crime Investigation Department.
The complexity of the case deepened when the victim’s father filed a protest petition, challenging the Magistrate’s decision to not take cognizance against other accused individuals. Reacting to this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a subsequent order on November 3, taking cognizance against these additional accused persons. This led the accused parties to appeal to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, which was eventually rejected, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.
In their appeal, the appellants argued that the High Court’s reliance on the precedent set in “Nupur Talwar vs. CBI and Anr (2012)” was misplaced. They contended that the Nupur Talwar case dealt specifically with a Magistrate’s power to take cognizance of a protest petition against a closure report filed by the investigating agency, a scenario distinct from their own.
The Supreme Court, aligning with the appellants’ view, expressed surprise at the Magistrate’s decision to entertain a protest petition against an earlier order of taking cognizance. The bench emphasized that a Magistrate does not possess the authority to modify a previous order of cognizance. The Court’s judgment explicitly stated,
“The order dated 3rd November 2009 amounts to modification of the earlier order dated 9th April 2009, which was not permissible as there is no power conferred on the learned Judicial Magistrate to modify an earlier order of taking cognizance.”
This ruling delineates the procedural boundaries for Judicial Magistrates, highlighting that entertaining a protest petition against their own order of cognizance is beyond their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s decision, which overturned the subsequent order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, reinforces the principle of procedural propriety in the judicial process. The case, titled “Ramakant Singh and others v. The State of Jharkhand and another,” marks a significant precedent in the legal landscape of India.
Also read- Supreme Court Stresses Balanced Approach In Sexual Harassment Cases To Uphold Justice (lawchakra.in)