RAMANATHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question of law that arises for consideration in these two proceedings relates to the ambit and scope of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code).

(2.) In both these proceedings the learned Magistrates had issued process to the accused on private complaints. The offences alleged were ebclusively triable by the Court of Session. In Kusuma's complaint the allegation was that the accused was liable to be proceeded against for an offence under Sec. 376 I.P.C. In the other matter (Cr. R. P. 655/83) complainant Saraswathamma's case was that the accused were liable for an offence of kidnapping or abduction etc., In Saraswathamma's case, when the accused entered appearance pursuant to the summons issued to them, they were committed to the Court of Session; but the learned Sessions Judge, Kolar, has discharged the accused under Sec. 227 of the Code holding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In his view the material available was not sufficient to frame any charge.

(3.) A Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence on complaint, shall have to proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XV of the Code in order to find out as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused in which case he will issue process under Section 204 of the Code.