Explanation of CrPC Section 200

Section 200 of the CrPC outlines the procedure for a Magistrate to examine a complainant when taking cognizance of an offense based on a complaint. This section ensures that complaints are verified under oath and that their content is properly recorded to maintain the integrity of the legal process.

1. Key Provisions of Section 200

(i) Examination of Complainant

• When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offense based on a complaint, the complainant must be examined under oath.
• The purpose of this examination is:
  • To verify the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint.
  • To provide the Magistrate with a clear understanding of the nature of the complaint.

(ii) Recording the Substance

• The substance of the complainant’s examination:
  • Must be reduced to writing.
  • Must be signed by both the complainant and the Magistrate.
• This ensures there is a formal and accurate record of the complainant’s statement.

(iii) Exceptions (Proviso to Section 200)

There are specific circumstances under which the Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant:

• Proviso (a): Written Complaints Transferred Under Section 192
  • If the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant before transferring the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 or sending it to the Court of Sessions.
• Proviso (aa): Complaints by a Court or Public Servant
  • If the complaint is made in writing by:
    • A Court (e.g., a court referring a case for further action).
    • A Public Servant acting in their official capacity.
  • In such cases, the complainant’s examination is not necessary because the credibility of the complaint is presumed.
• Proviso (c): Re-examination of Complainant
  • If a case has been transferred under Section 192, and the transferring Magistrate has already examined the complainant, the new Magistrate is not bound to re-examine them.

2. Objectives of Section 200

The main objectives of this section are:

• Preliminary Screening: To prevent frivolous or baseless complaints from proceeding further.
• Verification of Allegations: To ensure that the complainant is serious and truthful about the allegations being made.
• Record of Proceedings: To maintain an accurate record of the complainant’s statement, which can be referred to later if needed.
• Efficiency in Procedure: By allowing exceptions for written complaints or complaints made by public servants, the section ensures judicial efficiency without compromising fairness.

3. Steps in the Procedure

1. Filing of Complaint:

   • The complaint is submitted to the Magistrate in either oral or written form.

2. Taking Cognizance:

   • The Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offense based on the complaint.

3. Examination of the Complainant:

   • If the complaint is oral, the complainant is examined under oath to verify the details of the complaint.
   • The Magistrate may ask questions to understand the facts and ensure the complaint is not frivolous.

4. Recording the Statement:

   • The complainant’s statement is reduced to writing.
   • Both the complainant and the Magistrate sign the recorded statement to ensure its authenticity.

5. Proceeding with the Case:

   • Based on the examination, the Magistrate decides whether:
     • To issue a process (e.g., summons or warrant) against the accused.
     • To dismiss the complaint if it appears baseless.
     • To transfer the case to another Magistrate or send it to the Court of Sessions.

4. Explanation of Provisos

Proviso (a): Written Complaints

• If the complaint is submitted in writing, the examination of the complainant is not mandatory before transferring the case under Section 192 or sending it to a higher court.
• This ensures efficiency, especially in cases where the allegations are detailed in the written complaint.

Proviso (aa): Complaints by a Court or Public Servant

• Complaints made by courts or public servants in their official capacity are considered reliable, and thus, further examination of the complainant is not required.
• Example:
  • A tax officer files a complaint about tax evasion based on verified records.
  • The Magistrate need not examine the tax officer.

Proviso (c): Re-Examination

• When a case is transferred, and the complainant has already been examined by the transferring Magistrate, the new Magistrate is not required to repeat the process.
• This avoids unnecessary duplication and ensures procedural efficiency.

5. Significance of Section 200

Prevention of Misuse

• Ensures that complaints are scrutinized before proceeding, protecting individuals from baseless accusations.

Judicial Accountability

• The examination and recording process ensures that the complaint is formally documented, minimizing the risk of fabrication or alteration.

Fairness to the Accused

• By allowing only serious and verified complaints to proceed, the section protects individuals from unnecessary legal harassment.

6. Practical Implications

Example 1: Examination of Oral Complaint

• A complainant approaches a Magistrate with an oral complaint alleging theft. The Magistrate examines the complainant under oath, records the statement, and then decides whether to issue summons to the accused.

Example 2: Written Complaint

• A written complaint about fraud is filed with the Magistrate, who transfers the case to another court under Section 192 without examining the complainant.

Example 3: Complaint by a Public Servant

• A police officer files a written complaint about obstruction of justice. Since the complaint is from a public servant acting in their official duties, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant.

Conclusion

Section 200 of the CrPC establishes a systematic approach for examining complainants in criminal cases. By mandating the examination of complainants in most cases and allowing exceptions for written complaints and complaints by credible authorities, it strikes a balance between judicial efficiency and fairness. This provision plays a crucial role in filtering genuine complaints from baseless ones and upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system.