MAHALINGESHWARA BHAT Vs. M GANAPATHY BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have questioned the order of the learned judicial magistrate first class, sullia insofar as issuing of summons to them by rejecting the b-report for the offences under sections 465 and 468 of the IPC.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on presenting the complaint by the respondent, the matter was referred to the jurisdictional police under Section 156 (3) of the cr. P. c. for investigation. After investigation, the police filed b-report which shows that there are no materials against the petitioners for any of the alleged offences. Further submitted that in spite of the said fact, the learned judicial magistrate first class rejected b-report and ordered for issue of summons. It is also contended that the sworn statement was not recorded before taking cognizance and issuance of summons. The last contention is that, as the alleged offences are under sections 465 and 468 of the IPC, the complaint ought to have been filed by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the court could not have taken cognizance in view of Section 195 of the cr. P. c.

(3.) INSOFAR as these grounds are concerned, the Supreme Court in sachida nand singh and another v state of Bihar and another, while considering the Provisions of Section 195 of the cr, p. c. observed thus: