RAHMATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A warrant case instituted on private complaint was disposed of by the learned magistrate in C.C.No.257/1999 under section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ( for short, the 'CrPC') by an order of acquittal which is challenged in this appeal by the aggrieved complainant.

(2.) The complaint was filed against three accused alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 192, 193, 196 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(for short, the 'IPC') and the order of acquittal came to be passed at the stage of pre-charge enquiry under Section 244(1) of the CrPC when the appellant was admittedly absent. The learned Magistrate found that the appellant deliberately absented from the proceeding and did not show any interest in continuing prosecution despite the adjournment of the case a number of times for her examination and evidence.

(3.) The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order is perverse and illegal for the simple reason that the learned Magistrate lacked power to acquit since Section 256(1) did not extend to warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report and the said power under the Section was confined exclusively to summons cases as provided in Chapter XX of the CrPC. It is also submitted that absence of the complainant in the proceeding on the date of acquittal was not deliberate and wilful and in any case, no provision other than Section 249 is envisaged by the CrPC in such a situation for premature termination of a warrant case instituted on private complaint at the stage of commencement of enquiry under Section 244(1). But Section 249 too cannot, it is submitted, apply to the case on hand since the offences in question belong to a different class.