ORDER
1. The de facto-complainant is the petitioner. On the basis of a complaint filed by him, the learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statements of the petitioner and another. Though the private complaint was filed by the petitioner against respondents 2 to 4 herein for the alleged offences committed by respondents 2 to 4 punishable under Ss. 323, 342, 352 and 500 and 506(2) read with S. 34, IPC the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, against the respondents 2 to 4, only under Ss. 323, 342, 352 and 500, IPC, but not with respect to the offence punishable under S. 506(2) r/w 34, IPC. The petitioner-de facto complainant had filed Crl. M.P. No. 569 of 1993 before the learned Magistrate requesting him to take cognizance of his complaint with respect to the offence under S. 506(2) r/w 34, IPC also, against respondents 2 to 4 herein. The learned Magistrate passed the following Order, on 26-2-1993 in Crl. MP No. 569/93 :
“This Court already passed order on the complaint of the complainant taking the complaint on file under Ss. 323 and 342, 352 and 500, IPC. that means the complaint is dismissed for the offence punishable under S. 506(2), IPC. If at all the complainant is aggrieved on the orders of this Court, he must approach the appellate courts. At this stage, this court is not expected to include the S. 506(2) r/w 34, IPC since once the court is already passed order taking the complant on file under Ss. 323, 342, 352 and 500 IPC.
Hence the petition is dismissed as not maintainable.”
Sri Vinaykumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of S. 203, Cr.P.C., it is mandatory that the Magistrate should state the reasons for dismissing the complaint and as no reasons are given in the impugned order, the same is not legally sustainable.
2. Learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 4, however, submits that if the complaint is thrown out in its entirity by the Magistrate, then alone the Magistrate has to record reasons for doing so, and no reasons need be recorded when the Magistrate refuses to take cognizance of the complaint only in respect of some of the offences alleged in the complaint.
3. A reading of the provisions of S. 203, Cr.P.C. clearly discloses that the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 is untenable. S. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads thus :
“203. Dismissal of complaint :- If, after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under S. 202, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing”.
It is thus clear from the provisions of S. 203, Cr.P.C. that, if the complaint is thrown out either in its entirity or in part, it is mandatory that the Magistrate should record his reasons for not taking cognizance with respect to certain offences alleged.
4. In this case, the learned Magistrate atleast could have stated the reasons, in the impugned order, as to why cognizance of the complaint could not be taken with respect to the offence u/S. 506(2), IPC read with S. 34, IPC. He did not do so.
5. The Supreme Court in Chandra Deo v. Prokash Chandra, considering the scope of S. 203, Cr.P.C., ruled (at p. 403 of Cri LJ) :-
“When the Magistrate has dismissed the complaint without giving reasons as required by S. 203, Cr.P.C, the error of a kind which goes to the root of the matter. It is possible to say that giving of reasons is a pre-requisite for making an order of dismissal of a complaint under S. 203, Cr.P.C. and absence of the reasons would make the order a nullity. Even assuming, however, that the rule laid down in applies to such a case, prejudice is writ large on the face of the order. The complainant is entitled to know why his complaint has been dismissed with a view to consider an approach to a revisional Court. Being kept in ignorance of the reasons clearly prejudices his right to move the revisional court and where he takes a matter to the revisional court, renders his task before that court difficult, particularly in view of the limited scope of the provisions of Ss. 438 and 439, Code of Criminal Procedure”.
The above decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Deo (supra), was consistently followed by several High Courts. It was followed by the Kerala High Court in Abraham v. V. M. Thomas (1989 Cri LJ 705); the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kalu Ram v. Bhagat Ram 1975 Cri LJ 1627 and the Orissa High Court in Banchhanidhi v. Sri Inibass .
6. The Delhi High Court, in Udey Bir Singh v. Shakuntala Devi 1974 Cri LJ 187 (at p. 188), held thus :
“When a complaint is lodged against several persons but the Magistrate orders process against some of them, his order amounts to dismissal of the complaint against others, and though the Magistrate can pass a composite order which may be covered by both Ss. 203 and 204 of the Code, he is bound to record his reasons for not issuing the process against others. Law does not warrant any arbitrary order under either of the said provisions. An order passed in disregard of obligations imposed by Ss. 203, 204 is bad in law”.
The decisions noted above clearly disclose that, it is mandatory that the Magistrate should record his reasons for not taking cognizance of any offence indicated in the complaint filed by the complainant before his Court. It is further clear that, recording of reasons by the Magistrate is mandatory when the complaint is dismissed in its entirity or in part, or when cognizance of any offence alleged in the complaint is not taken by him (while taking cognizance of some other offences alleged by the complainant in the same complaint).
7. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside, and Cri. M.P. No. 569 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District, restored to his file. The matter is remited back to the learned Magistrate for dosposal of the same afresh, as indicated above, in accordance with law.
This Cri. R.C. having been set down for being mentioned on 29-11-94 pursuant to the order of this High Court dated 23-9-1994 and passed herein and upon persuing the said order and upon hearing the arguments of the counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned the Court on 29-11-94 made the following Order :
“ON BEING MENTIONED”
On 23-9-1994, this Criminal Revision Case has been disposed of by me, by dictating the order in Open Court. Soon after the order was pronounced on that date (23-9-94), learned counsel appearing for the parties in this court, represented that so far there is no decision on this aspect and requested that same of the rulings, they would submit, may be noted, so that the decision can serve as a judicial precedent for all the Subordinate Criminal Courts in the state. Therefore this Court directed the matter to be posted for being mentioned suo-motu. Now, the rulings cited at the bar are incorporated in the order dated 23-9-1994.