Criminal Procedure Code

Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal

(2004) 7 SCC 338

Facts

A private complaint was filed before a Magistrate.
After examining the complainant and material, the Magistrate issued process under Section 204 CrPC.
The accused appeared and requested the same Magistrate to recall the summoning order.
The request relied on K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, which had suggested that a Magistrate could reconsider process if no offence was disclosed.
The Magistrate or subsequent court proceedings raised the question whether such review was permissible.
A larger Bench of the Supreme Court examined the issue.

Whether a Magistrate can recall or review an order issuing process.
What remedy is available to an accused who claims that the summons is legally unsupported.

Criminal courts possess only those powers granted by:
the CrPC;
another statute;
or necessary inherent jurisdiction recognised by law.
A Magistrate has no general power to review or recall a final judicial order merely because it may be erroneous.
Section 204 authorises issuance of process once sufficient ground is found.
After process issues, the Magistrate must proceed according to the applicable trial procedure.
The accused may challenge the order through:
revision where maintainable;
Section 482 before the High Court;
constitutional supervision;
or discharge at the stage provided by the Code.
K.M. Mathew was overruled to the extent that it recognised a Magistrate’s power to recall process.
The BNSS complaint-process framework similarly contains no general Magistrate-level review power.

The Court accepted that an unjustified summons can cause serious hardship.
But hardship could not create a power absent from the Code.
Permitting recall applications before the same Magistrate would produce:
repeated reconsideration;
delay;
and uncertainty about when the complaint proceeding truly begins.
The Magistrate’s earlier order may be challenged for:
absence of allegations;
lack of jurisdiction;
statutory bar;
or mechanical reasoning.
Those challenges must be brought before the appropriate superior court or at the statutorily designated stage.
The accused argued that efficiency favoured immediate recall by the Magistrate.
The Court responded that procedural convenience cannot override the legislative structure.
Review and appeal are distinct powers that must be expressly conferred.
A Magistrate may correct:
clerical mistakes;
accidental errors;
or orders expressly made provisional.
But the court cannot rehear the merits of the summoning decision merely because the accused has now appeared with arguments or documents.
This preserves finality while still leaving meaningful remedies open.

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot recall or review an order issuing process under Section 204.
The accused must approach the High Court or use another remedy provided by law.
K.M. Mathew was overruled on this point. ( )