Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan

Quick Summary

Core point: At Sections 203–204 CrPC, the Magistrate checks only for a prima facie case—“sufficient ground for proceeding.” Over-weighing evidence is beyond this stage. Even if the Magistrate over-scrutinises, the Supreme Court will not step in under Article 136 unless there is a gross failure of justice.

Issues

• Did the Magistrate’s error in meticulously assessing evidence cause a gross failure of justice?
• What is the correct prima facie standard at Sections 203–204 CrPC for a Sessions case?

Rules

• At 203–204 CrPC, the Magistrate looks for prima facie evidence from the complaint and statements under 200–202.
• If there is sufficient ground for proceeding, process may issue and the matter be committed to the Sessions Court.
• The Magistrate must not weigh evidence like a trial court or apply charge-framing standards.
• Over-appreciation is an irregularity/illegality in exercise of jurisdiction, not a lack of jurisdiction.
• Article 136 intervention needs a gross miscarriage of justice; mere error is not enough.

Arguments

Judgment

The Supreme Court declined to interfere. The Magistrate may have over-stepped by meticulously appreciating evidence at the 203–204 stage, but this was an irregularity in jurisdiction, not a jurisdictional nullity. On the facts, the complainant’s version of the shooting was highly doubtful; therefore, no gross miscarriage of justice was shown to justify Article 136 relief.

Ratio Decidendi

At 203–204 CrPC, the benchmark is prima facie sufficiency, not meticulous weighing. Where the Magistrate’s error does not cause gross failure of justice, the Supreme Court will not exercise Article 136 to upset concurrent orders.

Why It Matters

• Clear gatekeeping: Defines the light-touch screen at the complaint stage.
• Appellate restraint: Article 136 is not a routine correction tool.
• Fair process: Commits only when there is a basic case—not after mini-trials.

Key Takeaways

• Prima facie ≠ proof. Only sufficient ground to proceed is needed.
• Over-analysis at 203–204 is an irregularity; not automatically a ground for Supreme Court interference.
• Article 136 needs gross injustice, not mere error.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “PRIME, not PROVE” — PRIME case to proceed; don’t PROVE guilt at the doorway.

1. Scan: Read complaint + 200–202 statements for a basic case.
2. Decide: Is there sufficient ground for proceeding?
3. Commit: If yes, issue process/commit; reserve weighing for trial/charge stage.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Prima facie

On first look; a basic showing that justifies moving ahead in the process.

Sections 203–204 CrPC

Stage where the Magistrate dismisses the complaint or issues process based on sufficiency, not proof.

Article 136

Supreme Court’s discretionary power—used sparingly to cure gross injustice.

FAQs

Related Cases