The High Court of Karnataka has directed the magistrate court to pass a fresh order on a request by the Bengaluru police to investigate the complaint of threat to life by Swapna Suresh, an accused in the Kerala gold smuggling case, against Vijesh Pillai.
The High Court found that the magistrate erred in permitting the police to investigate the non-cognisable offence under Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) without recording a prima facie reason for granting permission to register a First Information Report (FIR) and investigate the complaint.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while quashing the permission granted by the magistrate and the FIR registered by the K.R. Puram police, based on the magistrate’s permission to investigate the complaint by Swapna Suresh in March 2023.
The magistrate has now been directed to pass a fresh order, on a plea by the police seeking permission to investigate the complaint by Swapna Suresh, with proper application of mind as per the general guidelines issued to all magistrates while dealing with non-cognisance offences.
The High Court passed the order on a petition by Vijesh Pillai, who had questioned the legality of permission granted by the magistrate.
The complaint by Kerala gold smuggling case accused Swapna Suresh
Swapna Suresh, in her complaint to the K.R. Puram police, claimed that Vijesh Pillai wanted to interview her. They met in a hotel in Bengaluru in March 2023.
According to the complaint, during the meeting, Vijesh Pillai claimed to have been sent by Kerala CPI(M) State Secretary M.V. Govindan to discuss and settle the part of the involvement of Kerala Chief Minister P. Vijayan and his family in the case. Vijesh Pillai allegedly offered several crores of rupees to Swapna Suresh to leave Bengaluru and not rake up the case.
Vijesh Pillai allegedly threatened to look at alternative options, like a false case against Swapna Suresh by putting contraband in her travel bag, or causing harm to her family members, or even to kill her, to settle the issue.
The High Court, without going into the merits of the complaint by Swapna Suresh, found that the magistrate did not apply his mind while granting permission for investigation, as no reason was recorded in the order, which merely stated: ‘perused the requisition seeking permission to register an FIR in non-cognisable case; permitted to register and investigate in accordance with law’.
Non-application of mind by magistrates
The High Court noted that in a plethora cases, the court had quashed FIRs solely for the reason that the magistrate had not applied their mind in the form of recording prima facie reason, either to grant or reject permission sought by the police to investigate non-cognisable offences.
According to the court, this callous attitude of magistrates is contributing to the increase in docket explosion in the High Court, as they are not recording reasons even after the High Court, for several years, has been repeatedly issuing directions to magistrates to record reasons for their decision to grant or reject pleas for investigation in non-cognisable offences.
The complainants, who suffer offences like criminal intimidation, which come under the category of non-cognisable offences requiring permission from a magistrate for the police to investigate, will never get justice because of the magistrates not recording the prima facie reason for their order, the High Court said, while issuing guidelines to magistrates to record a brief reason to demonstrate their application of mind for their decision.
Guidelines for magistrates in complaints about non-cognisance offences
Invoking its power under Section 483 (duty of High Court to exercise cautious superintendency over courts of magistrates) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice Nagaprasanna, in his June 16 order, issued guidelines to all magistrates to be followed in every case of request for investigation in non-cognisance offences.
The guidelines state that the magistrate should forthwith stop passing one line or one sentence order like ‘permitted’, or ‘perused, permitted’, or ‘perused requisition and permitted registration of FIR’.
The magistrates must examine the contents of the requisition made for registration of FIR, record prima facie finding whether it is a fit case to order investigation or rejection, the High Court said while making it clear that there is no need to render a detailed order or detained inquiry at that stage, but order should demonstrate application of mind.
Also, the High Court said that the magistrates should record as to who had submitted the request, whether it is by the informant or the police, and make necessary endorsement in the order sheet. Magistrates should not pass any order if the complaint is not enclosed with the requisition for investigation.
Any deviation from these guidelines would be construed as magistrates contributing to the huge pendency of cases by their callous action of passing inappropriate orders, and would be viewed seriously, the High Court cautioned.
