If the Court does not agree with the protest application, the reasonable and proper approach may be to interpret the protest petition as a complaint by the Court, according to the Allahabad High Court.
While hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a 2006 judgement issued by the Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court of Sultanpur (UP) in the role of the revisional court, the Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav noted this.
Facts in brief
Tent and Shamiana, the petitioner's business, was located in Sultanpur. In 2005, a robbery occurred in his tent house, and the criminals grabbed practically all of Shamiana's belongings, worth around Rs.1,00,000/-, by smashing the rear locks and doors.
Initially, the local police did not file an FIR in the crime; however, after 11 days, the police filed an FIR under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and began an inquiry.
Finally, in 2006, a final report was presented to the court, noting that the theft occurrence was fraudulent and registered with the malafide intent of collecting insurance money. Even though a protest petition was filed against the final report, the Court accepted it and proceeded to summon the complainant (petitioner) for criminal prosecution under Section 182 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner, who was dissatisfied with the order, filed a criminal revision, which was dismissed by Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. Sultanpur, thus he went to the High Court.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order (summoning him under S. 182 IPC) was based solely on the case diary submitted by the police station and that the final report was accepted based on materials on the case diary; however, it was argued that the case diary in and of itself contained no material other than speculation about the filing of a false claim of insurance FIR.
Court's observation
The Court began by noting that both lower courts had erred in acting in line with the procedure after receiving a police report in a criminal case that had been filed. Taking into account the fact that the Magistrate's Court had concluded that the investigating officer was at fault for delaying the recovery of stolen goods, the Court stated: "The result of such a conclusion could be that the police who submitted the final report as to the falsity of the First Information Report as to the theft in the petitioner's shop was incorrect."
The protest request may have been considered a complaint. The police's assumption that the stolen information was submitted to fraudulently claim insurance money could not be given legal weight by the Magistrate for holding the First Information Report lodged falsely."
The court further stated that the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded under Section 182 Cr.P.C. for the prosecution of the complainant (petitioner) for lodging false report without investigating the truth or falsehood of the F.I.R. on evidence, which was not tenable in the light of the law.
In light of this, the Court determined that the Magistrate took the proper decision by reading the protest petition as a complaint, allowing the informant (petitioner) to provide evidence and witnesses at the support of his report to the police of theft in his business.
Finally, the Court decided that the decision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sultanpur was invalid and that the Additional Session Judge/Fast Track of Sultanpur was equally improper in supporting the Magistrate's order via his ruling. Therefore, both the ordered were set aside and a writ petition was allowed.