JAGDISH RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

A                               JAGDISH RAM
                                     v.
                       STA TE OF RAJAS THAN AND ANR.
                                                                                      --
                                  MARCH 9, 2004

B               [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]


          Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; Section 7:

          Complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging practice of
c untouchability by accused-Police found the complaint false qnd submitted            ....:w
    final report-Second Complaint-The Court took cognizance and ordered
     issuance of process against accused-Challenge to-Dismissed by Court of
     Sessions-Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal
    proceedings-High Court remanded the case to Trial Court for consideration                         '
     of entire material on record to decide question of issuance ofprocess against
D
     accused-Magistrate arrived at the same finding-Accu;ed filing another
    petition u!s 482 Cr.P.C.-Re_manded back by High Court directing trial Court
     to pass appr!Jpfiate orders on the basis of available material-Magistrate
    stood'by its ~a;lier finding and directed accused to be summoned-Yet another
    petition filed u!s 482 Cr.P.C.-Rejected by High Court holding that no case
E   for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was made out-On
     appeal, Held: Practice of untouchability is a serious offence-Since accused
                                                                                      ~   ...............
     has approached the High Court every time for quashing of orders passed by
    the Magistrate, the case did not cross the stage oftaking cognizance-Accused
     himself is responsible for delay-Hence, no case is made out to quash the
     criminal proceedings on the ground of delay-Constitution of India, 1950-
F
    Article 17-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 156(3), 173, 200,
    202 and 482.

          A Class-IV employee filed a complaiµt against the District Ayurvedic
    Officer in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging commission of
G   offence under Section 7 of the Civil Rights Act. Police investigated the matter
    and came to the conclusion that the complaint was false and submitted final
    report. The employee filed another complaint in which the Magistrate took
    cognizance and found a prima facie case against the accused and issued process
                                                                                                       .,
    against him. The order was challenged by the accused by filing a revision                 ,.,,-
    petition, which was dismissed by the Court of Sessions. Accused filed petition
H                                        846
                           JAG DISH RAM v. ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN                       847

          under Section 482 Cr.P,C. for quashing of the proceedings. High Court A
          remanded the case to the trial Court for disposal after taking into
          consideration entire material available on record. However, the Magistrate
          again reached the same conclusion. Accused filed yet another petition under
          Section 482 Cr.P.C. Again, the High Court remanded the matter to trial Court
          for passing an appropriate order. The Magistrate considered the matter for B
          the third time but again reached the same conclusion and summoned the
          accused. Accused filed another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but this
          time tfle High Court rejected it by holding that no case was made out for
          exercising inherent powers by it. Hence the present appeal.

                It was contended for the accused-appellant that the trial Court did not      C
          consider the entire material on record before deciding on issuance of process
          against him; that he was facing criminal trial for the last 19 years and
          therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed on the ground of delay.
 /
I

               Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                                                             D
                HELD: 1.1. The High Court has rightly concluded that the. order passed
          by the Magistrate does not call for any interference in exercise of its inherent
          powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (851-E]

                1.2. The order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance is a well
          written order. The order lJOt only refers to the statements recorded by the E
          police during investigation which Jed to the filing offinal report"by the police
          and the statements of witnesses recorded by the magistrate under Sections
          200 and 202 Cr.P.C. but also sets out with clarity the principles required to
          be kept in mind at the stage of taking cognizance and reaching a prima facie
          view. The Magistrate had only to decide whether sufficient ground exists or
          not for further proceeding in the matter. It is well settled that notwithstanding F
          the opinion of the police, a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance if
          the material on record makes out a case for the said purpose. The investigation
          of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. The
          Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding
          and not whether there is sufficient' ground for conviction. Whet~er the ·G
          evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only
          at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process
     -.   to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. [851-A-D]

               Dy. Chief Controller ofImports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal and Ors.,
          [200314 sec 139, relied on.                                                        H
    848                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A         2.1. It is to be borne in mind that the accused-appellant has been
    successively approaching the High Court every time when an order taking
    cognizance was passed by the Magistrate. It is because of him that the criminal
    proceedings before the Magistrate did not cross the stage of taking cognizance.
    When third time he was not successful before the High Court, he has
    approached this Court and at his instance the proceedings before the trial
B   Court were stayed. Thus, the case has not been proceeded further because of
    the accused. It would be an abuse of the process of the Court if he is now
    allowed to urge delay as a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings.



                                                                                      -·
                                                                  [851-H; 852-A-C)

C         S.G. Nain v. Union of India, [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 552; Bihar State
    Electricity Board and Anr. v. Nand Kishore Tamakhuwala, 11986] 2 SCC 414
    and Ramanand Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and Ors., 12002] l SCC 153,
    distinguished.
                                                                                       \
          2.2. In considering the question whether criminal proceedings deserve
D   to be quashed on the ground of delay, the first question to be looked into is
    the reason for delay as also the seriousness of the· offence. Regarding the
    reasons for delay, the accused was responsible for delay. Regarding the
    seriousness of the offence, it is noticed that the ill of untouchability was
    abolished under the Constitution and the Act under which the complaint has
    been filed was enacted nearly half a century ago. Hence, no case has been
E   made out to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground of delay.
                                                                       [852-C-E]

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
    357 of 1997.

F         From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.96 of the Rajasthan High Court
    in S.B. Crl. M.P. No. 66 of 1995.

          Sushi! Kumar Jain, H.D. Tharvi and Sharad Singhania for the Appellant.

          Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the Respondents.
G
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. This matter pertains to an incident that took
    place in the year 1985. The criminal proceedings before the Magistrate have
    not crossed the stage of taking cognizance. One of the contentions urged in
H   this appeal for quashing the criminal proceedings is long delay of 19 years.
---           JAGDISH RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [SABHARWAL. J.)                849

             The appellant is a District Ayurvedic Officer. The complainant is a A        .
      Class IV employee in Ayurvedic Aushdhalaya, Fatehgarh. According to the
      complainant on 7th November, 1985 when the appellant visited the said
      place several patients were present. The appellant asked the complainant to
      bring water. When the complainant brought water, he was insulted by the
      appellant who said to him "I do not want to spoil my religion by drinking B
      water from your hands. How have you dared to give water" and started
      abusing him. The complainant has filed a complaint in the court of Chief
      Judicial Magistrate alleging commission of offence punishable under Section
      7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
      Act').

             The practice of untouchability in any form has been forbidden by Article
                                                                                     c
      17 of the Constitution of India which inter alia provides that "untouchability"
      is abolished, the enforcement of any disability arising out of "untouchability"
      shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. To comply the mandate
      of the Constitution, the Act has been enacted inter alia with a view to prescribe
      pu'nishment for the preaching and practice of "untouchability", for the D
      enforcement of disability arising therefrom and for matters connected therewith.

            The aforesaid complaint was sent to the police under Section 156(3) of
      the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code')
      for investigation. A case was registered and investigation con~ucted. The
      investigating officer examined the complainant and other witnesses and also E
      obtained copies of certain documents. After completing the investigation the
      police submitted a final report under Section 173 of the Code stating that the
      complaint was false and in fact on 7th November the complainant was found
      absent from duty and, therefore, he was asked to take casual leave for half
      day and it is on that account a false complaint was lodged by him.             F
            After the submission of the abovenoticed final report by the police the
      complainant submitted another complaint. The statements of the witnesses
      who were said to be present at the time of the occurrence were examined by
      the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who by order dated 26th June, 1986
      found a prima facie case, took cognizance and issued process against the G
      appellant. The order issuing the process was challenged by the appellant in
      a revision petition filed before the Sessions Judge which was dismissed. On
      a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the orders of the Additional
      Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance as also of the Sessions Judge
      were set aside by the High Court by judgment dated 26th May, 1988 and the H
      850                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2004] 2 S.C.R.   ~
                                                                                             I
· ·A case was remanded to the trial courfto proeeed according to law keepfag in
      view the observations made in the judgment. The High Court inter alia
      observed that the trial court should consider the entire material available on
      record before deciding whether the process should be issued against the
      accused or not.

  B         After remand, on consideration of the material on record, the Magistrate
      again reached the same conclusion and took cognizance by order dated 22nd
      January, 1990. This led to filing of another petition under Section 482 of the
                                                                                          ----
      Code by the appellant. Again the High Court by judgment dated 27th May,
      1994 set aside the order dated 22nd January, 1990 inter alia noticing that the
  C   Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate while disagreeing with the final report
      should have given some reasons for not accepting it and this time also the
      case was remanded to the Magistrati:; directing him to consider the material
      available on record and thereafter pass appropriate order deciding whether
      the process should be issued or not on the basis of the available material.

  D         In this appeal, we are not going into the correctness of the judgments
      of the High Court dated 26th May, 1988 or 27th May, 1994. These judgments
      have attained finality. Suffice it to say that as directed by the High Court, the
      Magistrate again considered the matter for the third time. Again, by order
      dated 16th December, 1994 the Magistrate reached the same conclusion as
      had been reached on two earlier occasions and took cognizance of offence
  E   under Section 7 of the Act against the appellant and directed that the appellant
      be summoned.

            There was a third petition under Section 482 of the Code before the
      High Court challenging the order taking cognizance. This time the appellant
      was not lucky. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 4th May,
  F   1996 rejected the contention that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
      passed the order without considering the entire material on record. The High
      Cpurt held that no case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of
      the Code was made out.

  G         Challenging the judgment of the High Court, the appellant is before
      this Court on grant of leave. This Court had stayed the proceedings before
      the Magistrate pending decision of the appeal.

            The contention urged is that though the trial court was directed to
      consider the entire material on record including the final report before deciding
  H   whether the process should be issued against the appellant or not, yet entire
  --           JAGDISHRAM v. STATEOFRA.IASTHAN [SABHARWAL,J.]                     851

        material was not considered. From perusal of order passed by the Magistrate A
        it cannot be said that the entire material was not taken into consideration. The
        order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance is a well written order. The
        order not only refers to the statements recorded by the police during
        investigation which led to the filing of final report by the police and the
        statements of witnesses recorded by the Magistrate under Sections 200 and B
        202 of the Code but also sets out with clarity the principles required to be
        kept in mind at the stage of taking cognizance and reaching a prima facie
        view. At this stage, the Magistrate had only to decide whether sufficient
        ground exists or not for further proceeding in the matter. It is well settled that
        notwithstanding the opinion of the police, a magistrate is empowered to take
        cognizance if the material on record makes out a case for the said purpose. C
        The investigation is the exclusive domain of the police. The taking of
        cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a
        Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is
        sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground
        for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction,
        can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the D
        stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to
        record reasons. (Dy.Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. Roshanlal
        Agarwal and Ors., [2003] 4 SCC 139).

             The High Court has rightly concluded that the order passed by the E
        Magistrate does not call for any interference in exercise of inherent powers
        under Section 482 of the Code.

               Mr. Jain urged an additional ground for quashing the order. Learned
        counsel contends that the appellant is facing the criminal proceedings for the
        last I 9 years and, therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed on the p
        ground of delay. Support is sought from S.G. Nain v. Union of India, [I 995]
        Supp. 4 SCC 552, Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Nand Kishore
        Tamakhuwala, [1986] 2 SCC 414 and Ramanand Chaudhary v. State of
        Bihar and Ors., [2002] 1 SCC 153. In these cases, the criminal proceedings
        were quashed having regard to peculiar facts involved therein including this
        Court also entertaining some doubts about the case being made against the G
        accused. In none of these decisions any binding principle has been laid down
"'i     that the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed merely on account of
...._   delay without anything more and without going into the reasons for delay.

             It is to be borne in mind that the appellant has been successively H
    852                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2004) 2 S.C.R.

A   approaching the High Court every time when an order taking cognizance was
    passed by the Magistrate. It is because of the appellant that the criminal
    proceedings before the Magistrate did not cross the stage of taking cognizance.
    As earlier noticed, since earlier judgments of the High Court have attained
    finality, we are not going into correctness of these judgments. When third
    time the appellant was not successful before the High Court, he has approached       '
                                                                                        !
B   this Court and at his instance the proceedings before the trial court were
    <;tayed. In fact, from 1986 till date the criminal case has not proceeded further
    because vf the appellant. It would be an abuse of the process of the court if
    the appellant is now allowed to urge delay as a ground for quashing the
    criminal proceedings. In considering the question whether criminal proceedings
C   deserve to be quashed on the ground of delay, the first question to be looked
    into is the reason for delay as also the seriousness of the offence. Regarding
    the reasons for delay, the appellant has to thank himself. He is responsible
    for delay. Regarding the seriousness of the offence, we may notice that the
    ill of untouchability was abolished under the Constitution and the Act under
    which the complaint in question has been filed was enacted nearly half a
D   century ago. The plea that the complaint was filed as a result of vindictiveness
    of the complainant is not relevant at this stage. The appellant would have
    adequate opportunity to raise all pleas available to him in law before the trial
    court at an appropriate stage. No case has been made out to quash the criminal
    proceedings on the ground of delay.
E         Having regard to the enormous delay, we direct the trial court to expedite
    the trial and dispose of the case within a period of six months. For the
    reasons aforestated, the appeal is dismissed.

    S.K.S.                                                       Appeal dismissed.




                                                                                        ,.,