Judge used extra evidence from protest petition. Supreme Court says: wrong procedure.

The police said there was no case. The informant filed a protest petition with four affidavits. The magistrate agreed with the informant—but the Supreme Court said he used the wrong button.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Aligarh sat with two documents on a March morning in 2021. One was a police closure report, stamped "no evidence found." The other was a protest petition, thick with four witness affidavits that sat in a stack on his desk, their pages smelling of fresh ink. The magistrate chose the protest petition. He rejected the police report, took cognizance (formally noticed the case for judicial action), and summoned the accused to face trial for rioting, wrongful confinement, attempt to murder, and criminal intimidation. It seemed like justice done.

But the Supreme Court saw a procedural trap. The magistrate had used the wrong legal button—and that single error could have hollowed out the entire case.

When the police said "nothing happened"

The story begins at Police Station Civil Lines in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. A man filed an FIR (a written complaint that starts a police investigation) accusing the appellant of serious offences under the Indian Penal Code: Sections 147 (rioting), 342 (wrongful confinement), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 307 (attempt to murder), and 506 (criminal intimidation). The police investigated. They questioned witnesses, examined the scene, compiled a case diary. Then they reached a conclusion that often frustrates complainants: no evidence to substantiate the allegations.

Under Section 173(2) of the CrPC (the provision requiring police to submit a final report after investigation), the investigating officer filed a closure report. In plain terms, the police told the magistrate: this case has no legs. The accused should not be prosecuted.

The informant did not accept this. He filed a protest petition—a legal document challenging the police closure report—and backed it with his own sworn affidavit and four affidavits from witnesses. The affidavits made a serious allegation: the investigating officer had completed the case diary without actually recording witness statements. The investigation, the informant claimed, was a paper exercise, not a real inquiry.

The magistrate's choice

The Chief Judicial Magistrate had two paths. He could accept the police report and drop the case. Or he could reject the closure report and take cognizance—formally start court proceedings—against the accused.

He chose the second path. The courtroom fell silent as he read his order, the case diary weighing heavily in his hands. But the legal route he took mattered enormously. The CrPC gives a magistrate three ways to take cognizance of an offence. Under Section 190(1)(a), a magistrate can take cognizance upon receiving a complaint—a private accusation filed by an individual. Under Section 190(1)(b), a magistrate can take cognizance upon a police report—a state investigation. Under Section 190(1)(c), a magistrate can act on his own knowledge.

The CJM used Section 190(1)(b). He treated the case as a state case, directed the matter to continue as a police prosecution, and summoned the accused. The accused, now facing summons for serious charges, challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC (the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process). The High Court dismissed the challenge in August 2021. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Why the button matters

The Supreme Court bench—Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma—heard the appeal in April 2024. The question was deceptively simple: when a magistrate rejects a police closure report by relying on additional material filed by the informant, which legal button should he press?

The answer turned on a distinction that many trial courts get wrong. When a magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) based on a police report, the case remains a state prosecution. The state bears the burden. The informant becomes a witness, not a party. But when a magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) based on a complaint, the informant becomes the complainant. The case proceeds as a private complaint. The magistrate must then follow the procedure under Chapter XV of the CrPC—specifically Sections 200 and 202—which require the magistrate to examine the complainant and his witnesses on oath before issuing process (summoning the accused).

The Supreme Court found that the CJM had relied not only on the case diary material but also on the four affidavits filed with the protest petition. Those affidavits were additional evidence—material that went beyond the police report. Once the magistrate used that extra material to reject the closure report, he could no longer treat the case as a state prosecution under Section 190(1)(b). He had to treat the protest petition as a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) and follow the Chapter XV procedure.

The court cited its own precedent in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) and the older Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (1968) to support this distinction. The ratio (the court's central reasoning) was clear: "Where the Magistrate takes cognizance based on additional material filed with the Protest Petition beyond the police case diary, the case cannot continue as a State case but must proceed as a private complaint case." This single sentence from the judgment anchored the entire appeal—it told every magistrate in India that the source of their evidence determines the legal route they must take.

Cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) is available only when the magistrate relies exclusively on the police report and the material collected during investigation. The moment the magistrate dips into additional evidence—affidavits, documents, witness statements filed by the informant—the case shifts from a state case to a private complaint.

The practical trap for magistrates

This distinction is not academic. It has real consequences for the accused and the informant. In a state case under Section 190(1)(b), the accused faces the full machinery of the state prosecution. The informant has limited control. If the state decides not to pursue the case, the informant cannot step in. In a private complaint under Section 190(1)(a), the informant drives the case. He must present his evidence, face cross-examination, and bear the cost of process fees. The accused, in turn, gets the protection of Sections 200 and 202—the magistrate must examine the complainant and his witnesses before issuing summons, ensuring that frivolous cases are filtered out at the threshold.

The Supreme Court found that the CJM had skipped this filter. By taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) while relying on affidavits, the magistrate had effectively given the informant the benefit of a state case without following the safeguards of a private complaint. The accused was summoned without the magistrate ever examining the informant or his witnesses on oath. The silence in the courtroom when the closure report was first read had now been replaced by the weight of an order built on the wrong foundation.

What the court did

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the orders of both the High Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate. But it did not shut the door on the informant. The court left it open for the magistrate to treat the protest petition as a complaint and proceed afresh under Chapter XV of the CrPC. The magistrate can still examine the informant and his witnesses, and if he finds sufficient grounds, issue process. The difference is that now the procedure will be correct.

The court made no comments on the merits of the case. It did not say the accused was innocent or that the informant's allegations were false. It said only that the procedural route matters—and that using the wrong button can undo an entire prosecution.

THE PLAY: When a magistrate rejects a police closure report by relying on any material beyond the police case diary—affidavits, documents, or witness statements filed with a protest petition—cognizance must be taken under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC as a private complaint, not under Section 190(1)(b) as a state case.

The affidavits that saved the informant's case also changed its character. The magistrate got the result he wanted—but the Supreme Court sent him back to start again, this time with the right button. The stack of affidavits on his desk will now be examined on oath, the witnesses will speak in open court, and the case diary will be weighed properly. That is the difference a single legal button makes.