SUPREME COURT: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sec. 201, 304B and 498A — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sec. 3 and 4 — Criminal Appeal— By he impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge — Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to consider the protest petition afresh in the light of the observations made therein—Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the special leave petition was filed, for which permission was sought and was granted — opinion— the High Court concluded that the Magistrate has not considered the protest petition by the second respondent/complainant— Had it been the case where protest petition had not been considered at all, it may have been open to the court to came to the conclusion that an illegality had been committed in exercise of its jurisdiction to deal with the final report. But it is another matter when the Magistrate has undoubtedly considered the protest petition to direct the court again to consider the matter for action on the same, and for that purpose, to set aside the proceedings. held— If a protest petition fulfills the requirements of a complaint, the Magistrate may treat the protest petition as a complaint and deal with the same as required under Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code. In this case, in fact, there is no list of witnesses as such in the protest petition — Prayer in the protest petition is to set aside the final report and to allow the application against the final report— Not suggesting that the form must entirely be decisive of the question whether it amounts to a complaint or liable to be treated as a complaint, we would think that essentially, the protest petition in this case, is summing up of the objections the second respondent against the final report— High Court, contemplated consideration of the protest petition so that cognizance may be taken under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code — Premise being without any basis even qua the other accused who are the relatives of the appellant, we would think that the impugned order must be set aside. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and in exercise of our powers also under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we must set aside the Order of the High Court—the High Court erred in intervening and that there was no justification in the facts for the High Court in setting aside the orders — Appeal allowed.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
2019 IX AD (S.C.) 1 Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Another