KARAMVIR Vs. LALITA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Lalita Prasad filid a compaint against the petitioners herein in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, under sections 323 and 504 J. P. C. along with the complaint, he filed only one copy of the complaint. Summons were issued to the petitioners herein without, however, sending a copy of the complaint alongwith the summons as required under section 204 (1B) Cr P. C. The petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate in response to the summons on 5th October, 1971. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that the mandatory provisions of section 1204 (1B) Cr. P. C. had not been complied with by the complainant inasmuch as copies of the. complaint were not sent along with the summons and that, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. The complainant thereupon filed additional copies of the complaint in Court , on the same day, but the learned Magistrate dismisssd the complaint on the ground that such copies of the complaint were not filed along with the complaint.

(2.) Against this order of the learned Magistrate, the respondent filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions and contended that the provisions of section 204 (1B) Cr. P. C. were not mandatory but merely directory in nature and that. the failure on the part of the complainant to file sufficient number of copies of the complaint.along with the complaint could not justify the dismissal of the complaint, especially as he was ready to the additional copies of the complaint when the petitioner had appeared in the Court for the first time The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted this contention and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed him to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law after supplying copies.of the complaint to all the accused. 'Against this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner have filed the present revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the language of section 204 (IB) Cr. P. C. in support of his contention that this provision was mandatory and non-compliance with this provision warrants the dismissal of the complaint. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has referred to two decisions of the Madbya Pradesh High Court and also a decision of the Supreme Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Nakarkhan, a single Bench of that Court held as follows :- "Having regard to the wordings of Section 204, Clauses (1-A) and (1-B), it seems to me that tiling of the list of prosecution witnesses is essential unless the complainant is the.only witness in the case. It further appears that along with the summons or warrant issued under sub-secticin(1), copy of the complaint ought to be sent to the accused. It appears from the first proceeding dated 14th.March, 1971, that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind to.the change in the new procedure brought about by the introduction of sun sections (1-A) and (1 B) in Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He seems to have proceeded according to the old unameded provisions. This was not correct'' But finally the learned Single .juudge pasted the following .order : - "The Magistrate shall comply with-provisions of Section 204 (1-A)and (1-B) after duly applying his.mind lothe:same.andthen shall proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law." It has to be noted that although the learned Judge expressed the view that the provisions of section 204(1-B) were mandatory he did not quash the proceedings pending in the trial Court on that ground, but only directed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial of the case after complying with the provisions of section 204(1 B) Criminal Procedure Code. The other decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the case of Tolaram Mulchund and another v Shop Inspector. The only portion of the judgment in this case which is sought to berelied upon by the learned counsel is the one in which the following observations were made :- "It is now settled law that the ordinary meaning has to be adopted unless it leada to absurdity or it defeats the object of the piovision." Those observations are hardly of any assistance in deciding the point at issue in this case. The decision of the Supreme Court relied upan by the learned counsel is the ease of A. C. Aggarwal v. Raw Kali That was a case under the Suppression of lmmoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 and in the. context of the said Act, the Supreme Court was interpreting the word "may" appearing in section 190 (l)(b) Criminal Procedure Code and held that the word "may" in that section in the context meant "must", This decision is again hardly of any assistanca in resolving the controversy in the present case.