Chapter XXVI
Section 343 CrPC: Procedure of Magistrate taking cognizance
New Law Update (2024)
Section 399 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate's Court
Punishment
Procedural – Appeals / Revision
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) A Magistrate to whom a complaint is made under section 340 or section 341, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter XV, proceed, as far as may be, to deal with the case as if it were instituted on a police report.
(2) Where it is brought to the notice of such Magistrate, or of any other Magistrate to whom the case may have been transferred, that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen, he may, if he thinks fit, at any stage, adjourn the hearing of the case until such appeal is decided.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 343(1)
This sub-section mandates that when a Magistrate receives a complaint regarding offences affecting the administration of justice (as per Sections 340 or 341), they must process it as if it were a case initiated directly by a police report, ensuring a proper legal procedure for its trial.
Section 343(2)
This crucial provision allows a Magistrate to postpone the hearing of such a case if an appeal is ongoing in the higher court concerning the original judicial proceeding that gave rise to the complaint, thereby ensuring judicial propriety and preventing premature decisions.
Landmark Judgements
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370:
The Supreme Court, while interpreting Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC, extensively deliberated on the scheme for initiating prosecution for offences affecting the administration of justice. This judgment clarifies that only the court concerned can initiate such a complaint, and the process under Sections 340 to 343 CrPC is mandatory, preventing private parties from directly filing complaints. The ruling underscores the special nature of these proceedings, which eventually are tried by a Magistrate under the procedure outlined in Section 343.
M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 278:
This case reinforced the mandatory nature of the special procedure prescribed under Sections 340 and 343 CrPC for offences related to the administration of justice, particularly those involving perjury. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must strictly adhere to these provisions to ensure that prosecution for such serious offences is not initiated on frivolous grounds and only when it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so.