GOWDARA KRISHNAPPA Vs. S D RUDRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises in the following circumstances: On 28-12-1973, respondent S.D.Rudrappa presented a complaint petition in the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate at Bhadravathi, in CC.2 of 1974, against the petitioners for the offences under Ss.500 and 841 IPC. The main allegations in the complaint petition are that on 26-12-73, petitioner 1 convened a meeting and gave an ex-parte decision ex-communicating the respondent and the members of his family and prohibiting them from attending Antaragattamma Temple at Bhadravathi and that petitioners 3 and 4 were also present in that meeting and that thereafter petitioner 2 to 7 went on speading the said decision rendered by petitioner 1 to persons at Bhadravathi and Bannur. Then the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the respondent on 1-1-1974, which reads thus: " I swear that the contents of the complaint petition are, true and I have signed the complaint petition. The application is written to my instructions." The learned Magistrate on the same day, passed the following order: "Sworn statement of the applicant recorded. Register a case under Ss.500 and 341 of IPC against the accused. Issue, S.S. to accused by 19-1-1974." It is that order that is challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) It is contended by Sri B.V.Deshpande learned Counsel for the petitioners that while passing the impugned order the. learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure prescribed by Ss.200 and 204 CrPC, In other words his submission is that the complainant has not been examined in the manner required by law and besides the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind as to whether there were sufficient grounds for issuing process against the petitioners in respect of those offences. In my opinion there is force in this contention.

(3.) The principal object of examining a complainant on his filing a complaint petition under S.200 CrPC, is for ascertaining the veracity of the complainant and whether the facts mantioned in the complaint petition require investigation by a Criminal Court. It is therefore obvious that the examination of a complainant is not to be a mere matter of routine and there must be some objectivity in the performance of that act because that is intended to help the Magistrate in judging whether or not sufficient grounds exist for proceeding with the case. The examination of a complainant contemplated by S.200 CrPC, it is manifest, has a specific object to serve and a perfunctory examination is likely to defeat that object.