The Supreme Court has ruled that the mere recording of a complainant’s statement under oath is not a formality. Magistrates have a duty to elicit the truth before initiating criminal proceedings.
Case Background
On March 26, the Supreme Court set aside a complaint related to cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The ruling came after the Court found that the complainant had suppressed material facts, thereby misusing the judicial process. The complainant had deliberately withheld loan documents, which could have influenced the case's outcome.
The Court firmly stated that criminal law should not be invoked based on suppressed facts:
“While filing a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and recording his statement on oath in support of the complaint, if the complainant suppresses material facts and documents, he cannot be allowed to set criminal law in motion. Doing so amounts to an abuse of the legal process.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Demands Apology from Seoni District Bar Association Members Over Lawyers' Strike
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an appeal against the Madras High Court’s decision, which had refused to quash the complaint.
The appellant had allegedly taken a loan from the respondent-cooperative society and issued blank cheques as security. In 2016, the respondent deposited a security cheque worth ₹27.27 lakh, which bounced. A legal notice was sent on November 11, 2016, but the appellant denied liability and requested the loan documents to verify the debt.
Despite repeated requests, the respondent failed to produce these documents and instead filed a complaint in December 2016, conveniently suppressing the appellant’s letters demanding proof. The Magistrate subsequently issued summons in March 2017. When the Madras High Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision, the appellant moved the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that a complaint should not lead to the issuance of summons unless the Magistrate is satisfied with the legitimacy of the claim:
“Recording the complainant’s statement on oath under Section 200 of the CrPC is not an empty formality. The purpose of this exercise is to ascertain the truth. The learned Magistrate is duty-bound to question the complainant to establish credibility. Only after thoroughly examining the complaint, its supporting documents, and any witness statements, should the Magistrate determine if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.”
The judgment also noted that under Section 204 of CrPC and its corresponding provision under Section 227 of BNSS, issuing a criminal process is a serious matter with significant consequences. The accused is forced to defend themselves in trial, which should only occur when due diligence is observed.
The Supreme Court found that the complainant’s suppression of the appellant’s letters was a deliberate act of misleading the judiciary. This omission played a crucial role in securing the summons:
“In the statement on oath, the respondent vaguely referred to a ‘false notice reply,’ yet failed to produce a copy of the reply. Such suppression of material facts while initiating legal proceedings misled the Magistrate and resulted in an unjust summons.”
The Court reiterated that a litigant who suppresses material facts or makes false claims cannot expect relief from the court. It emphasized that honesty and transparency are critical when invoking legal remedies.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Questions Gender Neutrality in JAG Recruitment: 'Why Fewer Women Allowed?'
Considering the deliberate suppression of material facts, the Supreme Court quashed the complaint and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. It reinforced the duty of Magistrates to thoroughly examine complaints before summoning the accused, preventing misuse of criminal law.
Case Title: REKHA SHARAD USHIR versus SAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTA LTD.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Mr. Risvi Muhammed, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yeshwant Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaokar, Adv. Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv. Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv.
