Holding

A magistrate may revive proceedings under Section 258 CrPC, but must record reasons; failure to do so makes the order invalid.

Summary

A complaint was lodged alleging that the accused assaulted the complainant, leading to a charge sheet and issuance of processes. The trial magistrate, invoking Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), stopped the proceedings because the accused's whereabouts were unknown, without recording any reasons. After the accused was later located, the magistrate reopened the case and ordered the issuance of a non‑bailable warrant, again without stating reasons. The accused challenged this order under Section 482 CrPC; the High Court dismissed the petition, and the matter reached the Supreme Court. The Court held that while the magistrate has the power to revive proceedings, he must record reasons for doing so; the failure to do so rendered the order invalid, and the magistrate was directed to pass a proper order after considering the police requisition. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of, with the order to reopen the case set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a magistrate can revive proceedings stopped under Section 258 CrPC without recording reasons.
Whether the failure to record reasons invalidates the order to reopen the case and issue a non‑bailable warrant.
Whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of discharge under Section 258/245 CrPC in the absence of a release order.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 245, s. 258, s. 300, s. 482

Subjects

Criminal ProcedureSection 258DischargeRevival of proceedingsNon‑bailable warrantArticle 20Section 245Section 300

Judgment

(2009) 2 S.C.R. 623

RENUKA A
V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 2009
FEBRUARY 18, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :
ss.258, 245 and 300 - Complaint against appellant -
Charge sheet submitted - Processes issued - Further c
proceedings stopped by trial court on the premise that
whereabouts of appellant were not known - Appellant
subsequently traced out whereupon trial court permitted the
prosecution to re-open the case and a non-bailable warrant of
arrest was issued against her- Challenge to - Held: Although
0
the Magistrate could revive the proceedings, it erred in not
-'I recording reasons therefor - As some reasons were stated in
the requisition made by police authorities for issuance of non-
bailable warrant of arrest upon reopening the case, it was
obligatory on the part of Magistrate to apply his mind with
regard thereto - Magistrate directed to pass appropriate order E
upon consideration of the requisition filed by Police Authorities
afresh - Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 20.
A complaint was lodged alleging that a quarrel had
taken pla·ce by and between the complainant and the F
accused-appellant, during course of which, the appellant
trespassed in her compound, restrained her, pulled her
hair, assaulted herwith chappal, removed hermangalsutra
and damaged her bangles causing loss of Rs.200/- to her.
Charge sheet was submitted on completion of G
investigation and processes were issued against the
appellant. However, further proceedings were stopped by
the trial court on the premise that the whereabouts of the
appellant were not known. Tile appellant was subse-
623 H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A quently traced out whereupon the trial court permitted the
prosecution to re-open the case and a non-bailable
warrant of arrest was issued against her. Appellant filed
petition under s.482 CrPC which was dismissed by the
High Court. Hence the .present appeal.
B
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. In the present case, no order for release of
the accused was passed. No order of releasing the
accused was necessary to be passed as the appellant
C was not before the court. She had not even been arrested.
After the proceedings were stopped by the Magistrate, no
consequential order was passed and indeed could not
have been passed. The benefit of effect of discharge
could have been claimed by the appellant had she been
D . directed to be released, the effect of discharge being
correlated with release. If she had not been released, the
questi9n of her obtaining the. benefit of the effect of
discharge does not arise. An order of discharge can be
passed in terms of s.245 CrPC. For passing an order under
E ttie· aforesaid provision, reasons are required to be
recorded. [Paras 8, 9] [628-8; 628-H; 629-A-B]
SheonandanPaswan vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1987) 1
sec 288 - relied on.
F , 2'. The Magistrate in this case did not record any
reason. Mandatorily reasons were required to be
recorded·~ The Magistrate, thus, although has power to
revive the ,proceedings, he should have passed an
appropriate order upon application of mind. He did not
G · do so. He has directed reopening of the case and directed
issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest again without
recording any reason. It appears from the Order Sheet that
some reasons have been stated in the requisition made
by PSI, 8. Nagar, Police Station, Bangalore for issuance
H · of non-bailable warrant of arrest upon reopening the case.
RENUKA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 625

It was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his A
mind with regard thereto. [Para 1O] [629-C-D]
3. Although the High court was correct that the
Magistrate in a situation of this nature could revive the
proceedings, the Magistrate committed an error in not
recording reasons therefor. TherefoJe, while setting aside B
the impugned order passed by the High Court as well as
the order passed by the Magistrate reopening the case,
the Magistrate is directed to pass an appropriate order
upon consideration of the requisition filed by the Police
Authorities afresh. [Para 11] [629-E-F] C
Case Law Reference
(1987) 1 sec 288 relied on Para 9
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal D
No. 329 of 2009
From the Order dated 20.6.2008 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Petition No. 3037 of 2006.
R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, J.K. Nayyar,.Rahul Tyagi, E
Ashwani Garg (for P.P. Singh), for the Appellant.
Anitha Shenoy, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
S.8. SINHA, J. F
J
'.
~
1. Leave granted.
2. One Smt. Manjula on or about 23.12.2001 made a
complaint alleging that ten days prior thereto, i.e., on 13.12.2001
a quarrel had taken place by and between the complainant and G
appellant, during course of which, the appellant trespassed in
her compound, restrained her, pulled her hair, assaulted her with
chappal, removed the mangalsutra and damaged the bangles
causing loss of Rs.200/- to her.

3. A first information report on the said basis was lodged H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.
.>-

A for commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, '
"'- '~

341, 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). ~

A charge-sheet was submitted on 152.2002 upon completion
of investigation. Cognizance of offences was taken on I
28.9.2002. Processes were issued against the accused. The
B same.having not been served, non-bailable warrant was issued. '
L--
The rnatter was listed on various dates. The learned Magistrate
on or about 14.10.2004 in view of non-service of non-bailable "-
warrant J?assed the following order: r '
;
~

"Accused absent. It is noted that accused vacated her
c address and her whereabouts are not known. Offence are
triable as summons case. Hence further proceedings ..___
I
stopped U/s 258 Cr. P.C."
~'
'I
"'-

4. It, however, appears that on or about 19.4.2006, a
requisition was filed praying for issuance of non-bailable warrant '
D I
1
of arrest to the accused upon reopening the case. The said
application is not on record. On the basis of the said purported
requisition, the case was reopened and a non-bailable warrant
l'
of arrest was issued against the appellant. She filed an
.,_,.
"
application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
E Procedure (for short, "the Code") before the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore, which by reason of the impugned
judgment has been dismissed, stating that as the order of the
trial court dated 14.10.2004 was clear that further proceedings

F
had been stopped on the premise that whereabouts of the
appellant were not known and as the case had not been closed
·-._i
and having regard to the fact that she has now been traced out, r
I
the trial court could permit the prosecution to reopen its case.
.
#.

5. Mr. R.S. Hegde, learned c6unsel appearing on behalf i

of the appellant would contend that when an order is passed '~
G
under Section 258 of the Code in a case where evidence had
~
not been recorded, the consequence thereof would be that of
discharge.
6. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel appearing, on behalf
H of the respondents, on the other hand, would urge that as no
>
RENUKA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 627
[S.B. SINHA J.]

order of acquittal has been recorded, the court had ample A
..._ _...... · jurisdiction to revive the p'roceedings. Our att~ntion in this behalf
has been drawn to Sections 258 and 300(1) & (5) of the Code.
7. Indisputably in this matter, the procedure laid down for
summons case was adopted by the learned trial judge.
B
Section 258 of the Code reads thus:

"258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases.- In
any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon
complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the
previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any C
other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded
by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without
. pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of
proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal
witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of D
acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and
such release shall have the effect of discharge."
Section 258 of the Code corresponds to Section 249 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 with minor changes. E
Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 reads as
under:

"249. In any case instituted otherwise than upon complaint,
a Presidency Magistrate, a Magistrate of the first class,
or, with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate, F
any other Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by
him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing
any judgment either of acquittal or conviction, and may
, thereupon release the accused."

In the new Section, the word "summons" has been added G
and the words "a Presidency Magistrate" after "complaint" have
been omitted. The words 'District Magistrate, any other
Magistrate' have been substituted by the words 'Chief Judicial
Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate'. The words 'either of
acquittal or conviction and may thereupon release the accused' H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.
,

A have been substituted by the words "and where such stoppage
.
of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal
witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, "' ,.
and in any other case, release the accused, and such release
shall have the effect of discharge.
B 8. In this case, no order for release of the accused was ';-
I
passed. No order of releasing the accused was necessary to
be passed as the appellant was not before the court. She had
not even been arrested. Non-bailable warrant of arrest issued
against _her had not been executed.
c
Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides that a person
acquitted for an offence shall not be fried again for the same .~
,_
offence. Section 300 of the Code was enacted to give effect
thereto. We may notice sub-Sections (1) and (5) thereof:
D "300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be ·~

tried for same offence.- (1) A person who has once been
tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence •- ~

and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while l
such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable. '
E to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same
facts for any other offence for which a different charge
from the one made against him might have been made
under sub-section (1) of section 221, orforwhich he might
have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.
F xxx xxx xxx
(5) A person discharged under Section 258 shall not be
tried again for the same offence except with the consent
of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other
Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate."
G
9. The proceedings_ were stopped by the learned
Magistrate in terms of the order dated 14.10.2004. No _,
consequential order was passed and indeed could not have
been passed. The benefit of effect of discharge could have been
H claimed by the appellant had she been directed to be released,
RENUKA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 629
[S.B. SINHA J.]

... ~
the effect of discharge being correlated with release. If she had A
not been released, the question of her obtaining the benefit of
the effect of discharge does not arise. An order of discharge
can be passed in terms of Section 245 of the Code. For passing
an order under the aforesaid provision, reasons are required to
be recorded. {See Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar & B
ors. [(1987) 1 SCC 288, Para 81]}
10. The learned Magistrate in this case did not record any
reason. Mandatorily reasons were required to be recorded. The
~
~

learned Magistrate, thus, although has power to revive the
proceedings, he should have passed an appropriate order upon c
application of mind. He did not do so. He has directed reopening
of the case and directed issuance of non-bailable warrants of
arrest again without recording any reason. It appears from the
Order Sheet dated 19.4.2006 that some reasons have been
stated in the requisition made by PSI, B. Nagar, Police Station, D
,,. Bangalore for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest upon
reopening the case. It was obligatory on the part of the learned
Magistrate to apply his mind with regard thereto.
11. For the reasons aforementioned, although the High
court was correct that the learned Magistrate in a situation of E
this nature could revive the proceedings, in our opinion, the
learned Magistrate committed an error in not recording reasons
therefor. We, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order
passed by the High Court as well as the order passed by the
learned Magistrate reopening the case, direct the learned F
Magistrate to pass an appropriate order upon consideration of
the requisition filed by the Police Authorities afresh. The appeal
is disposed of accordingly.

B.B.B. Appeal disposed of.