The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 [Cr.P.C.] was amended in 2009 to introduce certain statutory rights for victims of crime. This blanketed the advent of a Victim’s Compensation Scheme [Section 357-A Cr.P.C.] and conferred a proper remedy upon victims to an enchantment towards judgments [By way of inserting a Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.]. During my first few months of working towards it, though, I found that the judiciary had played a similarly crucial role in growing the function of the sufferer, for instance, even though the Cr.P.C. Does not strictly envisage hearing victims while thinking about the grant of bail, many courts allowed them an opportunity to be heard at this level. This piece makes a specialty of another such judicial advent – the Protest Petition.
What is a Protest Petition?
Simply put, a Protest Petition is an illustration made by the sufferer/informant to the court in the course of or after the completion of an investigation by the police. Today, it’s miles most normally filed after the police document a Closure Report or B-Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (what turned into earlier generally known as the Final Report) wherein the police concludes the allegations aren’t made out against an accused. Then, the Protest Petition is an opportunity granted to the sufferer/complainant to elevate objections in opposition to those conclusions before the Magistrate decides to apply their judicial thoughts to the Final Report.
The Protest Petition via History
It becomes fascinating to trace the improvement of this idea through time. I daresay I even have finished this venture, though, and am nevertheless trudging through the selections. For instance, at the same time as the High Courts of Patna and Calcutta had significantly dealt with the prison niceties surrounding Protest Petitions before independence, the first stated judgment from Delhi does not come before 1990 in most databases! Unfortunately, I have not come across any discussion of how this changed into a unique method with the aid of judges to ensure certain degrees of protection for victims, at a time when such standards had been alien to the criminal justice system throughout most parts of the world.
Another exciting aspect was how the High Courts appear to have considered Protest Petitions as any representations protesting police investigations. The term predominantly used in Calcutta changed into Naraji, which loosely translates to dissatisfaction. Naturally, this prolonged to petitions filed through each accused human and complainants/victims, although the latter far outnumber the former. Further, the Protest Petition by an accused seems to have been filed throughout the research. In contrast, those using complainants were filed throughout, in addition to after the conclusion of investigations.
Lastly, the attention of Protest Petitions and the popularity of Final Reports with the aid of the police additionally raised critical problems concerning the nature of this exercise: whether it became a government or a judicial function. If the project was considered a government characteristic, there was a confined scope for reviewing such an order in revision court cases. This is the sole of the historic hobby now, in view that the present Cr.P.C. makes a clean separation between the govt and judicial features of the magistracy. It becomes no longer usual, and there had been several reviews earlier than 1973 which considered how this separation should take place (the thirty-seventh Law Commission Report discusses this to some extent).
Filing a Protest Petition
Many exciting procedural problems arose with the aid of permitting this intervention by the complainants. I am listing some under:
If the Magistrate has a Closure Report and a Protest Petition, can the latter be considered most effective if the Final Report is generic?
Must the Protest Petition be a ‘Complaint’ to draw attention?
Must the Complainant be examined on oath under Section 2 hundred Cr? P.C.? After focusing on a Protest Petition?
If the Magistrate focuses on a Protest Petition whilst there may be a Closure Report, might the case be attempted as a grievance case or one based on a police file?
If the Magistrate has a Protest Petition and Closure Report, can the Magistrate ship the police again for similar research to report a fresh document?
If the Magistrate is rejecting the Closure Report and accepting the Protest Petition, should the case be transferred before every other Magistrate for trial?
Some of these questions may be answered with a diploma of fact. On the first query, there’s no prohibition on thinking about the Protest Petition before accepting the Closure Report. The magistrate may also look at the protest petition ahead and focus on the Closure Report itself. The magistrate is likewise empowered to direct a similar investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after receiving a protest petition. Similarly, it’s miles settled that if the Justice of the Peace does decide to take recognition on the Protest Petition, it ought to satisfy the requirements of a ‘Complaint’ under Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C.. Then, the complainant needs to be tested on oath before issuing a summons.
