2005 (8) TMI 664 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court remitting the matter to the Magistrate on a finding that the Magistrate had issued process against the respondents without taking cognizance of the offence and since taking of cognizance was a condition precedent the issuance of process was bad?

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against High Court order remitting the matter to the Magistrate.
2. Dispute regarding the taking of cognizance by the Magistrate.
3. Validity of the issuance of process against the respondents.

Issue 1: Challenge against High Court order remitting the matter to the Magistrate

The appellant, who is the complainant, challenged the High Court's order remitting the matter to the Magistrate. The High Court remitted the case on the grounds that the Magistrate issued process against the respondents without taking cognizance of the offense, which was deemed as a condition precedent. The appellant contested the correctness of this order before the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Dispute regarding the taking of cognizance by the Magistrate

The primary contention revolved around whether the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offense before proceeding further in the case. The High Court held that the Magistrate did not take cognizance before recording the sworn statement and issuing summons. In contrast, the appellant argued that the Magistrate had indeed taken cognizance, as evidenced by the order dated 19.4.2000, which indicated that cognizance was taken on the date of filing the complaint itself.

Issue 3: Validity of the issuance of process against the respondents

Another crucial issue was the validity of the issuance of process against the respondents. The respondents contended that the Magistrate had improperly taken cognizance without applying his mind to the facts of the case, especially considering that the liability was attributed to the company, not the individual respondent. However, the Supreme Court found that the Magistrate had properly taken cognizance after considering the material before him and that the issuance of process was valid.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and order. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate had properly taken cognizance of the offense, and the issuance of process against the respondents was deemed valid. The trial court was directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law, ensuring prompt disposal of the case.