Section 200 CrPC Allows Direct Approach To Magistrate | J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating Case Over ₹18 Lakh Job Fraud Allegation
Safiya Milk
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of a criminal complaint involving allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation. The petitioner had moved the court under CRM(M) No.389/2025 to challenge proceedings initiated against him for offences under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court concluded that the allegations in the complaint constituted a prima facie case of cheating and criminal intimidation. Consequently, it upheld the Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance and issue process against the petitioner.
In a detailed judgment delivered on 11 July 2025, the court recorded that the material on record, including the complaint and preliminary evidence, disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed under the relevant provisions. The High Court rejected all procedural and substantive objections raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the complaint and the method adopted by the Magistrate. Declining to interfere with the ongoing proceedings, the court directed that the petition be dismissed in its entirety.
The present case originated from a complaint filed by the respondent before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class/Sub Judge, Kupwara. The petitioner was alleged to have approached the respondent in May 2020, identifying himself as a worker of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). During this interaction, the petitioner is said to have solicited a list of the respondent’s unemployed relatives, claiming that they could be appointed as Class IV employees in Central Government departments under a scheme purportedly designed for party workers.
According to the complaint, the respondent acceded to the petitioner’s request and, between May 2020 and September 2020, collected and handed over a sum of Rs.18,58,000/- to the petitioner. This transaction was carried out against proper receipts. In addition to the cash transactions, a further bank transfer amounting to Rs.20,000/- was made by the respondent to the petitioner’s account. Despite the passage of two years, neither the respondent nor any of his relatives received employment as promised.
The respondent alleged that when he demanded a refund of the money, the petitioner threatened to kill him. Consequently, a complaint was lodged before the trial Magistrate, who, after recording preliminary evidence, took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 506 IPC by order dated 17 July 2023.
In his petition to the High Court, the petitioner contended that the complaint represented a civil dispute concerning financial transactions and was improperly given a criminal flavour. It was argued that the allegations did not constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the procedural propriety of the complaint, stating that the respondent failed to approach the police under Section 154 CrPC for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR), and instead filed a direct complaint before the Magistrate.
The petitioner further argued that the Magistrate failed to order an investigation under Section 202 CrPC before issuing process. Relying on precedent including Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705, and Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, the petitioner submitted that the complaint was non-maintainable and that the Magistrate had acted in a mechanical manner without due application of mind.
The respondent, on the other hand, did not enter appearance.
The court examined these contentions and the factual record to determine the maintainability of the complaint and the correctness of the Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance and issue process.
The court carefully considered the allegations contained in the complaint and observed "It is clearly alleged by the complainant that under the pretext of providing Government job to the complainant and his relatives, the petitioner representing himself to be a worker of BJP, has collected a sum of Rs.18,58,000/- from May 2020 to September 2020 and another sum of Rs.20,000/- through bank transfer."
It was further recorded that "The specific allegation made in the complaint is that as promised, no appointment orders were handed over by the petitioner to the respondent/complainant or his relatives and when the respondent/complainant sought his money back from the petitioner, he threatened to kill him." The court held that these allegations, "prima facie show that the petitioner has made a false representation to the respondent and by adopting deception induced the respondent/complainant to deliver money to him."
According to the court, "ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC are clearly made out from allegations made in the complaint." The contention of the petitioner that the matter was purely financial was rejected, with the court stating, "It is not a case of commercial transaction between the parties, but it is a case where the petitioner has allegedly practised deception and fraud upon the respondent/complainant and duped him of a huge amount of money."
Regarding the petitioner’s argument on the procedural choice of approaching the Magistrate instead of the police, the court stated, "A complainant has the option either to approach the Police agency with an application for registration of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C or he/she has option to approach the Magistrate with a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C." The court clarified that "There is no bar to approach the Magistrate with a criminal complaint instead of approaching the Police even in cases where cognizable offences are disclosed from the contents of the criminal complaint."
As for the necessity of an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, the judgment stated that "It is only in the cases, where the Magistrate is unable to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding that he is required to direct investigation of a case in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C." The court added, "In a case of present nature, where the allegations made in the complaint supported by the preliminary evidence clearly disclose commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC, it was not at all necessary for the learned Magistrate to direct investigation."
The High Court also addressed the claim of non-application of mind by the Magistrate. It recorded that "A perusal of order dated 17.07.2023 passed by learned trial Magistrate clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has framed opinion for taking cognizance of offences under Section 420/506 IPC after analyzing contents of the complaint and the evidence." It concluded that, "The order passed by the learned trial Magistrate, whereby, the process has been issued against the petitioner, may not be detailed one, but it clearly reflects application of mind on part of the learned Magistrate."
The High Court stated, "For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed."
The court made no adverse remarks against the trial Magistrate’s decision to proceed with the complaint, and affirmed the correctness of the process issuance under Section 420 and 506 IPC. The court did not issue any ancillary directives, nor did it impose costs or grant further reliefs to either party. The petition stood dismissed in entirety.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Tariq Ahmad Lone, Advocate
Case Title: Ghulam Mohammad Payer v. Amanulla Khan
Case Number: CRM(M) No.389/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
