Criminal Procedure Code

Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan

1980 Supp SCC 499

Facts

Kewal Krishan filed a private complaint alleging serious offences arising from a violent land-possession dispute.
The Magistrate examined the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.
The complaint disclosed offences that were then required to be committed for trial before the Court of Session.
Questions arose regarding:
the depth of inquiry the Magistrate should conduct;
whether the Magistrate should test the defence;
and what material was sufficient for issuing process and committal.
The High Court interfered with the proceedings after examining the evidence more deeply.

What standard should a Magistrate apply during preliminary inquiry under Sections 200 and 202.
Whether the Magistrate must determine probable conviction before issuing process or committing the case.
Whether the defence case should be evaluated at that stage.

At the complaint stage, the Magistrate must determine whether sufficient ground exists for proceeding.
The Magistrate should make a cursory or prima facie assessment of:
the complaint;
sworn statements;
and inquiry material.
The Magistrate is not required to determine:
whether conviction is certain;
whether the defence explanation is more probable;
or whether every contradiction has been resolved.
The inquiry is designed to prevent:
frivolous;
vexatious;
or legally groundless complaints.
It is not a substitute for trial.
If the material, taken at face value, supports the essential allegations, process may issue.
The accused ordinarily has no right to participate fully or lead a defence during this preliminary inquiry.
The present BNSS complaint procedure is found principally in Sections 223 to 227.

The complaint and preliminary testimony described:
the occurrence;
the alleged participants;
and the acts attributed to them.
That material was sufficient to raise a prima facie case requiring adjudication.
The High Court had gone beyond the proper inquiry by:
comparing witness credibility in detail;
considering possible defence explanations;
and asking whether conviction would ultimately follow.
Such an approach placed the full trial before issuance of process.
The Supreme Court explained that “sufficient ground for proceeding” is not the same as “sufficient ground for conviction.”
At the preliminary stage:
the evidence has not been fully tested;
the accused has not entered a complete defence;
and the court does not possess the entire trial record.
The Magistrate must still apply an independent mind.
Process cannot issue merely because a complaint was filed.
But once sworn material supplies prima facie support, the case should move to the competent trial court.
Questions concerning:
reliability;
contradictions;
motive;
and defence remain open for later determination.

The Supreme Court restored the criminal proceedings.
It held that the Magistrate’s task under Sections 200 and 202 is limited to finding prima facie support on a cursory examination.
A detailed assessment of guilt or defence at that stage is impermissible. ( )