DILIP KUMAR Vs. BRAJRAJ SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') was filed by the first respondent showing the appellant as an accused and alleging offences punishable under Ss. 323, 342, 500, 504, 506, 295-A, 298, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Considering the limited controversy involved in this appeal, we are not adverting to the allegations made in the complaint.

(2.) On 22/8/2008, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing holding of an inquiry under sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 202 of the Cr.P.C. The order indicates that the learned Magistrate intended to himself hold an inquiry. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of only the first respondent/complainant and passed an order dtd. 18/9/2008, dismissing the complaint under Sec. 203 of the Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, the High Court has interfered with the said order on a limited ground. The High Court was of the view that there was no proper inquiry made by the learned Magistrate in terms of subSec. (1) of Sec. 202 of the Cr.P.C and therefore, the High Court remitted the complaint to the learned Magistrate from the stage of holding an inquiry under sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 202 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that it was not mandatory for the learned Magistrate to record statements of other witnesses. He submitted that after considering the statement of the first respondent-complainant and the averments made in the complaint and other material on record, the learned Magistrate rightly came to the conclusion that the allegations in the complaint were mala fide. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh vs. Gunwant Singh and Ors,(1992) 2 SCC 213. He relied upon what is held by this Court in paragraph 11 thereof. He also pressed into service another decision of this Court in the case of Nagawwa Vs Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi,(1976) 3 SCC 736.