SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner stood summoned by the Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 02.08.2018, whereby cognizance was taken of the offence under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) which was submitted on that date, upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) no. 214/2018 of police station Dwarka North which had been registered on 18.07.2018, at the instance of Head Constable Ravi Prakash, after his visit to the business premises shop no. G-1 &2, plot no.2, Sector 12, Dwarka, Delhi where the petitioner was working as the branch manager, the business being run in the style of Vodafone store. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by his subsequent order dated 17.09.2018, commenced with the trial of the petitioner on the accusations for offence under Section 188 IPC for which a "notice" is indicated to have been framed separately. It is, however, noted (as per page 90 of the paper book) that the procedure adopted by the Metropolitan Magistrate is that of trial of warrant case inasmuch as charge has been framed against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has come up with the petition at hand under Section 482 Cr.P.C. submitting that the order whereby cognizance had been taken and process issued is bad in law, referring in this context to the pre-requisite of Section 195 Cr.P.C, reliance being placed on a ruling of a learned single judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as Ashwani Garg vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,2010 SCCOnline(P&H) 2932.

(3.) Issue notice. State through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice. Since the question of law raised is short and all the requisite material for its consideration is available, it having been presented with the petition, with the consent of both sides, the matter has been finally heard.