The recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Mukhtar Zaidi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anotherreported as 2024 INSC 316 has significant implications regarding the treatment of protest petitions in criminal proceedings. The Court held that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and issues summons to an accused based on additional evidence presented in a protest petition, the petition should be treated as a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The decision overturned the findings of both the High Court and the Trial Court, which had refused to treat the protest petition as a private complaint. The Supreme Court emphasized that if summons were issued based on a protest petition, the Magistrate should have followed the procedures outlined in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.

Background:

In the case at hand, a Magistrate issued summons to an accused after rejecting the police report and recording satisfaction based on a protest petition filed by the informant. However, the Magistrate refused to treat the case as a complaint and directed it to continue as a State case under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

Arguments:

The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that both the Magistrate and the High Court erred in not considering the protest petition as a private complaint. It was contended that once the Magistrate relied on additional material from the complainant, the petition should have been treated as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

On the other hand, the State argued that the Magistrate did not consider any additional evidence filed with the protest petition and relied solely on material collected during the investigation.

Observation:

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant's contention, holding that the Magistrate should have treated the protest petition as a private complaint and followed the procedures outlined in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. The Court cited its previous ruling in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of UP to support its decision.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed, and it was left open for the Magistrate to treat the protest petition as a complaint and proceed accordingly under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. This ruling clarifies the procedure for handling protest petitions and underscores the importance of following prescribed legal processes in criminal proceedings. It ensures that complainants have recourse to the appropriate legal mechanisms and safeguards their rights in seeking redressal for alleged offences.

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that if a Magistrate, rejects the report supplied U/s 173 (2) filed by an investigating agency but proceeds to take cognizance of additional material supplied by the complaint appended with a protest petition filed by the complainant, then the complaint ought to be deemed as a ‘private’ complaint. The Magistrate ought to follow the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.

Furthermore, in case the Magistrate in his discretion rejects the protest petition, then the complainant is not disentitled to file a fresh complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C.