Five ways a Magistrate can deal with a complaint
On receipt of a written complaint coming under Section 2(d) CrPC, the available to a Judicial Magistrate or Special Judge who is competent to take cognizance of the case have five options, says the High Court of Kerala in Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others [2025:KER:26809].
The five options a Magistrate has are as follows
1) Rejection of complaint: If the complaint on the face of it does not at all make out any offence, then the Magistrate may reject the complaint. This power of rejection at the pre-cognizance stage is inherent in any Magistrate.
2) Order an Investigation: Where the Magistrate does not reject the complaint at the threshold, he may, without taking cognizance of the offence, order an investigation by the police under S.156(3) CrPC and forward the complaint to the officer in charge ofthe police station concerned provided that the complaint alleges the commission of a cognizable offence. Such a course can be adopted by the Magistrate only at the precognizance stage.
3) Taking cognizance of the offence: Where the Magistrate does not order investigation by the police under S.156(3) Cr.PC at the pre-cognizance stage and does not reject the complaint at the threshold, then he may decide to proceed under Chapter XV Cr.PC and thereby take cognizance of the offence provided the allegations in the complaint prima facie make out an offence. If after applying his mind to the allegations made in the complaint the Magistrate takes judicial notice of the accusations and decides to proceed under Chapter XV Cr.PC, he can then be said to have taken cognizance of the offence. But if the Magistrate, instead of proceeding under Chapter XV Cr.PC, takes any other action such as issuing search warrant or ordering investigation under S. 156(3) Cr.PC, then he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.
4) Issuing process after S.202 enquiry/investigation: If after himself conducting an enquiry or directing investigation under S.202(1) CrPC the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall then issue summons or warrant against the accused under S.204(1) CrPC depending on the nature of the case.
5) Dismissal of complaint after Sec.202 enquiry/ investigation: If after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and the witnesses if any and the result of the enquiry or investigation ifany, under S.202 CrPC the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall then dismiss the complaint after briefly recording his reasons for doing so. (See Section 203 Cr.PC).
If, after perusing the complaint, the Magistrate is of the opinion that the averments therein do not at all spell out any offence, then he should definitely possess the power to throw away the complaint and terminate the matter then and there. The Magistrate can, in such a case, reject the complaint {Vide: Biju Purushothaman v. State of Kerala [2008 (3) KHC 24]:}.
On receipt of a private complaint, the Magistrate must first scrutinise it to examine if the allegations made in the private complaint, inter alia, smack of an instance of frivolous litigation; and second, examine and elicit the material that supports the caseof the complainant.
The Magistrate is judiciously employed to stem the flow of frivolous litigation. He has the duty to identify and dispose of frivolous litigation at an early stage by exercising, substantially and to the fullest extent, the powers conferred on him [Vide: Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P AIR 2021 SC 1381}.
Brief facts in the above case
In the above case, the High Court of Kerala dealt with a Criminal Revision Petition filed by Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan against Pinarayi Vijayan and others, challenging the rejection of a corruption complaint by the Special Judge.
The key issue was whether the complaint contained sufficient facts to constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
The court found that the complaint was based on suspicions rather than concrete facts, and the materials presented did not substantiate the allegations of corruption.
Consequently, the court dismissed the Revision Petition, affirming the Special Judge’s decision, but clarified that the complainant could file a new complaint if adequate materials were available in the future.
Reference
- Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others [2025: KER:26809]
