H R GURAPPA Vs. BANNUR VENKATAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner is the complainant in the Court of the Special First Class Magistrate, Ramanagaram in Crl.C.No.1444 of 1968. He has challenged the correctness and legality of the order of discharge of the accused-respondents passed by the learned Special First Class Magistrate in the said case on 15-9-1970. The facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly narrated as follows.

(2.) The petitioner, as complainant, complained of offences falling under Ss.143, 447, and 427 IPC. against the respondent as accused and the police, after investigating into the complaint, submitted 'B' report to the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate accepted the report. The complainant appeared before the learned Magistrate and offered to substantiate his complaint allegations and an opportunity was given by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under S.203 Cr.P.C. The complainant preferred Crl.R.P. No.1 of 1968 in the Sessions Court at Bangalore and the learned Second Additional District Judge allowed the petition and thereafter the records were sent back to the Court of the learned Magistrate whei e further proceedings took place. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate framed charges for offences punishable under Ss. 447 and 427 IPC. only as against the present respondent-1 and discharged the remaining 7 respondents. It is to be noted at this stage that the learned Magistrates did not frame the charge for an offence punishable under S.143 IPC. against the present respondent-1. Then the complainant moved this Court in Cr.R P.No.483 of 1969 challenging, the said order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate. The said revision petition was disposed of by this Court on 10-8-1970.

(3.) It was directed therein by this Court that the learned Magistrate should frame charges under Ss.143, 447 and 427 IPC. against all the accused who are the present respondents. The order sheet maintained in the Court of the Special First Class Magistrate. Ramanagaram disclose that on 25-7-70, when the case was called or both the complainant and the accused persons were present but since the order of the High Court was not received, it was adjourned to 25-8-1970. On 25-8-1970 the complainant was present and accused-1 was present but since the order of the High Court was not received, the case was adjourned to 15-9-1970 It is to be noted at this stage that the first portion viz., "Complainant present. Accused: A-1 present. Orders not received" has been written by the clerk, and the remaining portion viz.,