- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) against the petitioner and his mother for offences under Sections 120B, 499, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging misuse of the name of Late S.G Raghuram as the petitioner’s father. Subsequently, the respondent amended the complaint to include allegations of defamation arising from a poem written by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate allowed this amendment on 24.05.2007 and, after recording statements and hearing the respondent’s counsel, took cognizance of the case against the petitioner by an order dated 21.06.2007. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings on the ground that the Code does not provide for amendment of complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the amendment of a complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C is permissible under law.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- There is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for amending a complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C; hence, the Magistrate was not justified in allowing the amendment.
- The Magistrate’s taking cognizance of the case based on the amended complaint is not legally permissible.
- The complaint filed at Bangalore is not maintainable as the alleged defamation occurred in Mysore.
- Relied on Maj. Genl. A.S Gauraya v. S.N Thakur (1986) 2 SCC 709 to argue that absent specific statutory provision, a Magistrate cannot exercise inherent jurisdiction to amend a complaint.
- Relied on Sri C.S Sathya v. State of Karnataka (1994 Crl.L.J 1954) to support jurisdictional contention regarding place of offence.
- Argued that permitting amendment leads to procedural impropriety and the proceedings should be quashed.
Respondent’s Arguments
- No prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the amendment of the complaint.
- Relied on Jayprakash Sumantrao Kale v. Smt. Chandrakala Jayprakash Kale (1984 Crl.L.J 1257) to support the permissibility of amendment and the discretionary power of courts at interlocutory stages.
- Contended that the amendment was justified and the proceedings should not be quashed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Maj. Genl. A.S Gauraya v. S.N Thakur, (1986) 2 SCC 709 | Inherent jurisdiction of Magistrate to amend complaint is not exercisable absent specific statutory provision. | Petitioner relied on this to argue that amendment of complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C is impermissible. |
| Sri C.S Sathya v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Crl.L.J 1954 | Jurisdiction of court based on place where offence's consequences occur (defamation). | Petitioner cited this case to argue Bangalore court lacked jurisdiction as alleged defamation occurred in Mysore. |
| Jayprakash Sumantrao Kale v. Smt. Chandrakala Jayprakash Kale, 1984 Crl.L.J 1257 | Courts have discretionary power to allow amendments at interlocutory stages; High Court reluctant to interfere with such orders. | Respondent relied on this to justify amendment and oppose quashing proceedings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the respondent filed an application to amend the complaint by adding specific paras before cognizance was taken. The Magistrate allowed the amendment on 24.05.2007 and subsequently took cognizance on 21.06.2007. The Court observed that the amendment aimed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and was allowed before cognizance, thus not prejudicing the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s contention that the poem did not reference the respondent, but held that such contentions could be raised at the final hearing. Considering the sworn statements and the procedural timeline, the Court found no valid legal ground to quash the order permitting amendment or the cognizance taken thereafter.
Holding and Implications
The Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the order dated 21.06.2007 in PCR No. 8409/2007 registered as C.C No. 15851/2007.
The direct effect of this decision is that the proceedings against the petitioner will continue based on the amended complaint. The Court did not set any new precedent but upheld the discretionary power of the Magistrate to allow amendment of the complaint prior to taking cognizance, emphasizing that objections to the content of the complaint can be addressed at the final hearing.
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the order dated 21.06.2007 in PCR No. 8409/2007 registered as C.C No. 15851/2007 pending on the file of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
2. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner and his mother Smt. H.R Leelavathi for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 499 and 500 of IPC, alleging that they used the name of Late S.G Raghuram as the father of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent-complainant amended the complaint contending that he has been defamed by the Poem written by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has allowed the application for amendment of the complaint vide order dated 24.05.2007 and after recording the statements of the respondent and his witnesses and after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondent, has taken cognizance of the case against the petitioner only, by an order dated 21.06.2007
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2007 of taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner, the petitioner filed this petition to quash the proceedings in PCR No. 8409/2007 which is registered as C.C No. 15851/2007 on the ground that there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure providing for the amendment of the complaint.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment of the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate was not justified in amending the complaint by entertaining the petition for amendment of the complaint. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case based on such amendment and the same is not permissible under law. Therefore, the proceedings in PCR No. 8409/2007 registered as C.C No. 15851/2007 are liable to be quashed.
5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Maj. Genl. A.S Gauraya v. S.N Thakur reported in (1986) 2 SCC 709. In the above case, the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant and a final order has been passed. Subsequently, the Magistrate passed the order revoking his earlier order dismissing the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any specific provision under the Code, a Magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the alleged defamation took place at Mysore. Therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent at Bangalore is not maintainable. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance in the case of Sri C.S Sathya v. State of Karnataka reported in 1994 Crl.L.J 1954. This case involved a weekly newspaper containing defamatory article read by the complainant at Udupi, the newspaper printed, published and meant for reading at Bangalore. This Court held that the act and consequence of harming reputation of complainant completing at Bangalore, the Court at Bangalore has jurisdiction to try the offences of defamation.
7. Relying on the above decisions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that when there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment of the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C, the order passed by the Magistrate amending the complaint and permitting the respondent to amend the complaint by adding paras 11(a) and 11(b) is not permissible under law. Therefore, the entire proceedings in PCR No. 8409/2007 are liable to be quashed.
8. As seen from the case record, the complainant filed an application on 24.05.2007 seeking amendment to the complaint filed by him by adding paras 11(a) and 11(b). The learned Magistrate allowed the application on the same day and the respondent-complainant was permitted to carry out amendment by adding paras-11(a) and 11(b). After carrying out amendment, the learned Magistrate recorded the statements of witnesses produced by the respondent and after perusing the contents of the complaint, sworn statement and after hearing the Counsel for the complainant, has taken cognizance of the case against the petitioner under Sections 499 and 500 IPC and issued process to the petitioner.
9. The learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner even after amendment of the complaint. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings in PCR No. 8409/2007. He placed reliance in the case of Jayprakash Sumantrao Kale v. Smt. Chandrakala Jayprakash Kale reported in 1984 Crl.L.J 1257. In the above case, the applicant coming to know about the second marriage of the respondent-husband after filing maintenance application, filed application for amendment, the amendment was opposed by the other side on the ground that the Court had no such power under the Code. The Bombay High Court held the amendment was rightly allowed by the Courts below and in any case, the High Court would not interfere with the discretionary order passed at interlocutory stage and it was open to the respondent to oppose it at the final hearing.
10. Therefore, the only point for consideration is:
“Whether the amendment of the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C is permissible under law?”
11. Admittedly, in the instant case, the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the respondent for amendment of the complaint by adding the prayers at paras 11(a) and 11(b) even prior to taking of the cognizance of the case. By the date of disposal of the amendment application i.e, on 24.05.2007, cognizance of the case was not taken. It appears that after coming to know about the Poem “” published by the petitioner, the respondent-complainant sought for amendment of the complaint already filed by him.
12. The petitioner contended that there is no reference to the respondent whatsoever in the said Poem. Even if there is no reference to the respondent in the said Poem, amendment of the complaint was allowed by the Magistrate even before taking cognizance of the case. If the amendment is not allowed, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Since the amendment sought for by the respondent was allowed even before taking cognizance of the case, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The petitioner may raise the above contentions at the time of final hearing of the case.
13. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in permitting the respondent to amend the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C even before taking cognizance of the case, after considering the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses. Therefore, there are no valid grounds to quash the order dated 21.06.2007 in PCR No. 8409/2007 registered as C.C No. 15851/2007 pending on the file of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
The petition is therefore dismissed.
Alert