T N NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. GANDHI SIDDIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in this case, one Gandhi Siddiah claiming to be one of the members of the managing committee of 'Dalitha Vidyarthi Nilaya, Mysore', filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of the City Magistrate, Mysore, alleging that they had committed offences punishable under S.420 and 406 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate heard the com- piainant and postponed issue of process to the petitioners. To ascertain the truth of the allegaions, he sent the complaint to the Circle Inspector of Police. Mysore under S. 156(3) of the IPC for investigation and report. While forwarding the complaint, the learned Magistrate directed the Circle Inspector to seize the documents of the Society and examine them to find out the truth of the allegations. Accordingly, the Circle Inspector seized the documents and investigated into the complaint made by the complaih nant. After investigation he submitted 'B' report stating that no case had been made out against the petitioners either under S. 420 or 406 of the IPC and that, the dispute was of a civil nature.

(2.) After receipt of the 'B' report the complainant wanted to prove his case. He made allegations against the Circle Inspector of Police that he had not investigated into the case properly and had sided the petitioners. The learned Magistrate after going through the complaint and the report of the investigation made by the police, and after hearing the complainant, was o the view that no case had been made out by the complainant to enable him to issue process against the petitioners for any of the offences alleged in the complaint. In that view, he dismissed the complaint under S.203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) The complainant took the matter in revision and the learned Sessions Judge took the view that before a complaint could be rejected u|S.203 of he CrlPC. the complainant should have been given an opportunity to meet the reasons given by the police in their report and in that view, he set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the complaint to be disposed of according to law. The learned Sessions Judge was also of opinion that there was a duty cast upon the Court to give an opportunity to the complainant to explain or meet the evidence recorded by the police during the investigation and that in this case such duty had not been discharged.