1

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CASE PRESENTATION

OF

“S.R SUKUMAR VS S.SUNAAD RAGHURAM”

Submitted by Guided By

Sarthak Neema Saurabh Chaturvedi

BBA LLB

C018

8102208020

1
 2

CASE DETAILS – State of Gujarat Appellant and Girish Radhakrishnan varde

Respondent in Supreme Court
This was case related to amendment of criminal complaint as the magistrate allowed the
amendment of the complaint the question was whether the amendment Justified or not.
Whether the Amendment before the cognizance or after cognizance is made by the
Magistrate. In this Case Section 200 to 205 and Section 190 Of Criminal Procedure Code
1974 was Questioned?
Appellant Respondent Judge
S.R. Sukumar S. Sunaad Raghuram T.S Thakur
Mrs. Kiran Suri (Legal S Udaya Kumar Sagar R. banumathi
Counsel) (Legal Counsel)

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Appellant in The Trial Court Was S. SUNAAD RAHURAM and The Respondent Was
S.R SUKUMAR. As in Trial Court the Appellant (Respondent of Supreme Court i.e S.R
SUKUMAR) Filed the Complaint Under Section 200 Cr.P.C Against the First Respondent
(Appellant in Supreme Court) and His Mother Smt. H.R. Leelavathi Alleging That they have
Committed the offences Punishable under Section 120-B, 499 And 500 Of IPC.

COMPLAINT

The respondent (of Supreme Court) has alleged that he was born of the wedlock of his father
late Shri S.G. Raghuram and mother Late Smt. B.S. Girija. However, his father after the
death of his mother Girija, married another divorcee lady namely Smt. H.R. Leelavathi (A-2)
who at the time of the second marriage, already had a son aged six years S.H. Sukumar
(appellant), born from her previous wedlock. The respondent alleged in the complaint that his
father’s name i.e. Late Shri S.G. Raghuram has been purportedly used by the appellant
portraying as if he is his natural father. Respondent alleged that the act of the appellant using
name of respondent’s father as his own father often created doubts among the near and dear
ones about the legitimacy of the respondent- complainant and integrity and character of his
father which had affected the respondent’s reputation

Respondent filed the complaint on 9.05.2007 and his statement was recorded in part on
18.05.2007 and further recorded on 23.05.2007. Next day i.e. on 24.05.2007, respondent
moved an application seeking amendment to the complaint by praying for insertion of paras

2
 3

11(a) and 11(b) in the complaint stating the fact of poem named ‘Khalnayakaru’ written by
the appellant in connivance with his mother (A-2) depicting the respondent as
Villain-‘Khalnayak’, with an intention to malign the character, image and status of the
respondent.

JURISDICTION CLAUSE -
The Appellant in The Trial Court Was S. SUNAAD RAHURAM and The Respondent Was
S.R SUKUMAR .As Appellant Decided to file a criminal complaint in the city of Bangalore
as it is a Metropolitan area and Section 120-B ,499 and 500 were question so the case was
Directly heard in the court of Chief Metropolitan Court and Later the Issues were Changed
because the Magistrate allowed the Amendments in the complaint which was Challenged By
respondent in Trial Court . The Decision Was Given On 21.06.2007.

Legal Issues in Front of Trial Court

 To Find out whether there is Crime by Respondent under Section 499 and 500 Of
IPC.
 Later this issue was only dismissed as The Magistrate allowed the Amendment of
Criminal complaint as this valid or not in the Court of Law.

Trial Court Judgement - The trial court allowed the amendment on 24.05.2007 and took
the cognizance of the offence and directed issuance of the process to the appellant vide Order
dated 21.06.2007. Aggrieved by the Order dated 21.06.2007, the appellant approached the
High Court praying for quashing the proceedings in PCR No.8409/2007 registered as C.C.
No.15851/2007 on the ground that there is no provision under the Code, providing for
amendment of the complaint.

The Present Case is fought In the Three Courts Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
High Court of Karnataka, Supreme Court of India.

JURISDICTION CLAUSE OF HIGH COURT

The Appellant in High of Karnataka Was S.R KUMAR and The Respondent was S.
SUNAAD RAHURAM This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order
dated 21.06.2007 in PCR No. 8409/2007 registered as C.C. No. 15851/2007 pending on the

3
 4

file of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore As a trial Court Allowed the
Amendments in the Complaint and High Court Gave Its Decision On 20.01.2012.

SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION CLAUSE

As the Decision was against the Appellant in the High Court of Karnataka So the Appellant
Approached to Honourable Supreme court of India and files Special Leave Petition Under
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution As their Substantial Question of Law is involved
Whether the Amendments in Criminal Complaint Can be allowed or Not. The Apex Court
Gave the Decision On 2nd July 2015

LEGAL ISSUES OF THE CASE-

IN FRONT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA -

 According to the Facts of the Case, when did The Magistrate take Cognizance of the
Complaint For the 1st time i.e. on 18.05.2007 or on 21.06.2007, when the Magistrate
Satisfied of a prima facie case to take Cognizance of the Complaint.
 Whether Amendment to a Complaint Filed under section 200 Cr.P.C is permissible in
Law Whether the Order Allowing the Amendment Suffers from Serious Infirmity.

Arguments

Appellant –

 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is no provision under
the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment of the complaint filed under Section
200 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate was not justified in amending the complaint by
entertaining the petition for amendment of the complaint
 It was submitted that on 18.05.2007, the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint
for the first time and the Magistrate allowed the amendment application on
24.05.2007 and the Magistrate again took cognizance of case for the second time on
21.06.2007 and thus the cognizance taken twice by the Magistrate is impermissible
under the law. 
 It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case
based on such amendment and the same is not permissible under law. In the Support

4
 5

of his contention the Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance in the case of
“Maj.Gen. A.S. Gaurya Vs S.N Thakur” 1 In the above Case, the complaint was
dismissed for non-appearance of the complaint and a final order has been passed ,
Subsequently, the magistrate passed the order revoking his earlier order dismissing
the complaint for non – appearance of the complaint . The Honourable supreme court
held that in the absence of any special provision in the code, A magistrate cannot
exercise any inherent jurisdiction. So, the amendment of the criminal complaint is not
valid in this case.
 The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the alleged defamation
took place at Mysore, Therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent at Bangalore is
not maintainable.
 The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that when there is no provision in the
Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment of the complaint filed under Section 200
Cr.P.C. the order passed by the Magistrate amending the complaint and permitting the
respondent to amend the complaint by adding paras 11(a) and 11(b) is not permissible
under law. Therefore, the entire proceedings in PCR No. 8409/2007 are liable to be
quashed
 Appellant States that  the act of taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate
precedes the examination of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the
appellant placed reliance on the decision of this Court in CREF Finance Ltd. vs. Shree
Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd. And Anr.2
 Appellant Also states That prejudice is caused to the petitioner even after amendment
of the complaint.
 It was further submitted that once cognizance was taken, the Magistrate ought not to
have allowed the amendment and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Respondent-

 Complainant was examined in Court on oath in part on 18.05.2007 and his

examination was deferred to 23.05.2007 for further inquiry and during the course of
inquiry, the amendment application was filed and the same was allowed in order to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
1
(1986) 2 SCC 709
2
(2005) 7 SCC 467

5
 6

 It was further contended that on 18.05.2007, no cognizance was taken and therefore it
would be wrong to suggest that cognizance was taken twice by the Magistrate .It was
submitted that though there is no enabling provision in the Criminal Procedure
Code to amend the complaint and there is no specific bar in carrying out the
amendment and in the interest of justice, Court has power to do so.
  Section 200 Cr.P.C. provides for the procedure for Magistrate taking cognizance of
an offence on complaint. The Magistrate is not bound to take cognizance of an
offence merely because a complaint has been filed before him when in fact the
complaint does not disclose a cause of action.
 2 Cases were led down by the Respondent are “ In Narsingh Das Tapadia vs.
Goverdhan Das Partani & Another”3 it was held that the mere presentation of a
complaint cannot be held to mean that the Magistrate has taken the cognizance. In
“Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh & Another”,44this Court explained the
meaning of the word ‘cognizance’  it menas Cognizance is taken by Magistrate In
legal parlance cognizance is taking judicial notice by the court of law, possessing
jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is
any basis for initiating proceedings and determination of the cause or matter judicially
i.e. when he applies Judicial Mind to a Particular case.
 Respondents Argues Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint to
examine the complaint and examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses
present, if any. Then normally three courses are available to the Magistrate (1) Either
to issue summons to Accused or Order an Inquiry or Dismiss the Complaint. So
therefore. A Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence when he decides to proceed
against the person accused of having committed that offence and not at the time when
the Magistrate is just informed either by complainant by filing the complaint or by the
police report about the commission of an offence. As in this Case Nothing of 3 Has
done by Magistrate so the Cognizance has not taken place.
 Respondent further stats that Whether the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offence or not will depend upon facts and circumstances of the particular case
As respondents Now states Two Case “R.R Chari vs State of Uttar Pradesh”5 And
“West Bengal vs Abani Kumar Banerjee”6 It was held that  any Magistrate has taken
3
AIR 2000 SC 2946
4
(2012) 3 SCC 6
5
1951 SCR 312
6
AIR 1950 CAL.437

6
 7

cognizance of any offence under S.190(1)(a), Criminal P.C., he must not only have
applied his mind to the contents of the petition, but he must have done so for the
purpose of proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the subsequent provisions of
this Chapter,– proceeding under S. 200, and thereafter sending it for enquiry and
report under S. 202. When the Magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of
proceeding under the subsequent sections of this Chapter, but for taking action of
some other kind, e.g., ordering investigation under Section 156(3), or issuing a search
warrant for the purpose of the investigation, he cannot be said to have taken
cognizance of the offence. So according to it also magistrate has not taken in
Cognizance.
 The learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant submitted that no prejudice is
caused to the petitioner even after amendment of the complaint. placed reliance in the
case of “Jayprakash Sumantrao Kale v. Smt. Chandrakala Jayprakash Kale and
Others”7. In the above case, the applicant coming to know about the second marriage
of the respondent-husband after filing maintenance application, filed application for
amendment, the amendment was opposed by the other side on the ground that the
Court had no such power under the Code. The Bombay High Court held the
amendment was rightly allowed
 So respondent Says that As complaint made on 9.05.2007 the only part statement was
recorded on 18.07.2007 and part statements on 23.05.2007 and request for amending
was Done on 24.07.2007 and on 21.06.2007 directed issuance of the process .As on
18.07.2007 and on 23.07.2007 only the complaints was recorded there was no
cognizance taken by magistrate as he Did not apply judicial mind in the Case before
21.06.2007 and the cognizance was taken only on 21.06.07 when he directed the
issuance of process. So, there was no cognizance was done before 21.06.2007 So the
appeal of the Appellants Should be dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court of
India.

Judgement of Karnataka High Court – The High Court declined to quash the order Dated
21.06.2007 passed in PCR No.8409/2007 thereby Confirming the order passed by the VII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Bangalore permitting the respondent to carry out
the Amendment in a criminal complaint on the premise that the amendment was allowed
prior to taking the cognizance of the Office. Further, the High Court was of the view that if

7
MANU/MH/0037/1984 : 1984 Crl. L.J. 1257

7
 8

Amendment is not allowed, then the Multiple Proceedings would have ensued between the
parties. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner even after amendment of the complaint.
Therefore, The Magistrate Was justified in amending the complaint.

Judgement of Supreme Court of India- The Special Leave petition As has been Filled by
the Appellant it is arises out of an order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the high Court of
Karnataka Wherein the High Court Declined to quash the order of Lower Court And the On
the Basis of Facts, Legal Issues , Arguments Of Appellant and Respondent the Supreme
Court Gave the Following Judgement on 2.07.2015 By giving Suitable Reasons which Lead
to the Dismissal of the Appeal of the Appellant.

 Magistrate was yet to apply the judicial mind to the contents of the complaint and had
not taken cognizance of the matter.
 Since summons was yet to be ordered to be issued to the accused, no prejudice would
be caused to the accused
 The amendment did not change the original nature of the complaint being one for
defamation.
 The publication of poem ‘Khalnayakaru’ being in the nature of subsequent event
created a new cause of action in favour of the respondent which could have been
prosecuted by the respondent by filing a separate complaint and therefore to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings, the trial court allowed the amendment application.
 The Court Explains The Argument of the Appellant As there is no specific Provision
in the code for the Amending the complaint or petition By giving explanation And
Citing the Case of “UP Pollution Control Board vs Modi Distillery and ors”8 That If
the amendment sought to be made relates to simple infirmity which is curable by a
formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to
other side, then notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision regarding
the amendment of the complaint, the Court may permit such amendment to be made.
On the contrary, if the amendment does not relate to simple infirmity or which is not
curable by a formal amendment or it will cause prejudice to the other party, then the
Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint.

Considering these factors which weighed in the mind of the courts below, in Supreme Court
view, the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate

8
(1987) 3 SCC 684

8
 9

allowing the amendment application and the impugned order does not suffer from any serious
infirmity warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.

The appeal is dismissed. The trial court is directed to take up the matter and dispose the same
in accordance with law as early as possible on earlier Issue for Which the Complaint is Filled
in the Trial Court.

MY JUDGEMENT
According to me the Decision Given by lower Court, High Court of Karnataka, Supreme
Court of India is the Correct Decision because Magistrate is Not taken any cognizance on
18.05.2007or 23.05.2007 he has taken cognizance only on 21.06.2007 As the Magistrate is
yet to take Any step towards cognizance i.e. Applicability of the Judicial mind in the case As
of matter. And According to sections 200 and 190 Cr.P.C there was no cognizance was made
by magistrate and various case laws also derives different conclusions as whether when
cognizance has made by magistrate and when not. As there was no issue of summons and no
Judicial proceedings were done by magistrate relating to the accused so it can be said that he
is yet to take cognizance. As the Amendment also did not change the basic structure of the
complaint which is related to defamation so the amendment of the complaint was justified
.As the poem which the respondent want to amend can be altogether new cause of action in
favour of the respondent which could have been prosecuted by the respondent by filling a
separate therefore to Avoid Multiplicity of proceedings the courts were again correct as it will
the Waste the time Of Honourable Supreme court . As the Amendment in complaint or
petitions is not allowed in the code but the court held correct and in various cases it points
that If there is amendment related curable infirmities than it can be allowed in respect of the
complaints. So as in this Case it is related to Curable infirmities the Court is correct in
Amending the Complaint. In My view the court Is Correct in giving its decision in favour of
Respondent.

9
10

10