DHANALAKSHMI AND ANOTHER Vs. Y. MUNI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in P.C.R. No. 12 of 2001 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The Petitioners are arrayed as accused in the complaint filed before the Court in P.C.R. No. 12 of 2001 by one Muni Reddy, wherein the Petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint, it is also averred that when the matter was reported to the jurisdictional police, they did not receive the complaint and, therefore, it was prayed before the Magistrate that the complaint be referred to investigation under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint was received on 20.1.2001. The learned Magistrate directed the registration of the case as P.C.R. and put up for hearing on 9.2.2001. On 9.2.2001 the complainant was present and the Magistrate has passed the following order:

(2.) THE Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contended that the proceedings in the order sheet of the Magistrate clearly disclose that he had applied his mind and taken cognizance and, therefore, it was not proper for him to have referred the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard, he has relied on a ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in D.P. Sharma Vs. C.R. Gowda 1982 (2) KarLR 358 wherein it is held that:

(3.) ON going through the facts and the ratio in the decision cited above, I find that the ratio rather goes against the contention of the Petitioner. The facts in the present case are similar to the facts in the said case where the prayer is made for reference of the case for police investigation and in face of such prayer it is held that it is not permissible for the Magistrate to proceed on further enquiry under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure unless the complainant makes the specific prayer invoking the jurisdiction and indulges the Court to proceed with the case with a private complaint under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, in the instant case also we find that the complainant had made a limited request of seeking reference of the complaint for police investigation which has been granted and I do not find any illegality in the order of the Magistrate to interfere with. Accordingly, I find no merit in the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed.