A.K. SURESH Vs. RAJENDRA PETER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is an accused in C.C. No. 376/95 for offences under Sections 341, 324, 448 and 506, IPC pending on the file of the JMFC, II Court, Mysore has filed the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging the legality of the order dated 28 -5 -1991 of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the said offences and directing issue of summons to the accused; and praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings against him and the order dated 19 -9 -1995 passed by the III Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Mysore in Cr. R.P. No. 52/91, affirming the order of the learned Magistrate is also challenged by him.

(2.) A few undisputed facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated as under :

(3.) MR . Chandramouli, learned counsel for petitioner, challenging the legality of the impugned order submitted that the same is patently illegal in that the learned Magistrate had no power to take cognizance of the offences after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses and on the basis of such statements. His further submission was that the learned Magistrate had to decide about taking cognizance or otherwise of any of the alleged offences against the accused solely on the basis of the 'B' report submitted by PSI to VV Puram P.S. Besides, it was also submitted by Chandramouli that the cognizance of the offences shown to have been taken by the learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses was patently illegal and also that there was no complaint before him in the strict sense of the term enabling him to take cognizance of the offences under any of the clauses of Section 190, Cr.P.C. It was also urged by Sri Mouli that there was no list of witnesses furnished by the complainant either in his complaint or in the said protest memo which was an imperative requirement of law for the learned Magistrate to issue process against the accused.