Chapter XV
Section 201 CrPC: Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case
New Law Update (2024)
Section 239 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural / Administrative
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) If the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect;
(2) If the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 201(1)
This sub-section deals with situations where a criminal complaint is submitted in writing to a Magistrate who discovers they are not legally competent to handle the case. In such circumstances, the Magistrate is obligated to return the written complaint to the person who filed it, along with a clear note (endorsement) indicating that it should be presented before the correct court that has the necessary jurisdiction.
Section 201(2)
This sub-section addresses cases where a criminal complaint is made orally (not in writing) to a Magistrate who subsequently finds they lack the legal authority to take cognizance of the matter. Here, the Magistrate’s duty is to simply guide or direct the complainant to approach the appropriate court that possesses the proper jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Landmark Judgements
Mohan Lal v. State of U.P. (2007):
The Supreme Court clarified that a Magistrate, upon receiving a complaint, is legally bound to proceed in accordance with the law. If it is determined that the Magistrate lacks territorial jurisdiction over the matter, the appropriate procedure is to act under Section 201 CrPC.
S. W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar (2002):
This Supreme Court ruling underscored that the question of territorial jurisdiction can and often should be decided at the initial stage of a criminal complaint. While not exclusively interpreting Section 201, it reinforces the principle that a Magistrate must determine competence early on, thereby necessitating actions contemplated by Section 201 if jurisdiction is absent.