Magistrates must properly read complaints before taking cognizance in criminal cases: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently stressed that judicial officers must become efficient in reading criminal complaints and the First Information Reports (FIRs) before taking cognizance of a case. [SK Basavarajan v State of Karnataka].Justice R Devdas observed that if magistrates do not read complaints and FIRs, and go about passing orders mechanically, the first line of defence would naturally be breached.."If our learned Magistrates do not read the complaints and FIRs and go about passing orders mechanically, the first line of defense would naturally be breached," the order stated. .The Court made the observation while quashing an FIR which claimed that there was a conspiracy behind the registration sexual assault cases against Dr. Shivamurthy Muruga Sarana, the Pontiff of Sri Murugharajendra Bruhanmata, Chitradurga. The Pontiff is facing two cases alleging sexual abuse of inmates of a hostel run by the Mutt. On Wednesday, he was granted bail by the High Court on the condition that he will not enter Chitradurga district till the conclusion of the trial..While quashing the another case alleging that there was a conspiracy against the Pontiff, Justice Devdas opined that if the magistrate had read the written complainant, it would have declined to take cognizance. “Our criminal justice system will not permit a parallel proceeding to test and verify the genuineness of the allegations made in a previous complaint [of sexual assault, in this case],” the Court added.The Court further noted that if such parallel proceedings were permitted, the informant in the sexual assault case would be forced to stand trial or justify her allegations twice. “If permitted, such proceedings would amount to travesty of justice,” the judge said..He went on to note that the information alleging conspiracy could be placed before the the court during the hearing of the sexual assault case. If the court concludes that false information was given to implicate the Pontiff, then the judge can take a call on whether to initiate perjury proceedings, he pointed out..Moreover, the High Court noted that when the application for remanding the Pontiff was filed by the police, the magistrate had been informed that the complaint alleging conspiracy was a counter blast to the case against the Pontiff..Nevertheless, the Court found that the magistrate had proceeded to take cognizance “mechanically, unmindful of the grave consequences that befall the persons targeted in the complaint.”.The Court, therefore, quashed the conspiracy FIR and ordered that a copy of this order be circulated so that judicial officers are mindful about reading complaints before they proceed further with the case..“A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Karnataka Judicial Academy, Bengaluru, to ensure that the learned Magistrates/Judges understand the efficacy of reading the criminal complaints/first information reports, before taking cognizance of a case," the order stated. .[Read Order]