THILAKAN Vs. SUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the accused in S. T. No. 1/79 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kunnamkulam, seeking to revise an order passed by the Magistrate on 25-6-79 issuing summons to the petitioners or in the alternative, to quash the complaint.

(2.) The first respondent herein filed a private complaint before the court below against the petitioners alleging that they committed an offence punishable under S.500 IPC. The Magistrate after taking cognizance on examining the complainant proceeded to conduct an enquiry under S.202 Cr. P. C. and the case was posted for that purpose to a particular date on which date, although the complainant was present, as the document necessary for the purpose of the case had not been received from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the case was adjourned directing that the witness will appear. On that day, the complainant was absent and on his application the case was adjourned to another date, on which date as witnesses were absent, summonses were issued to witnesses 3 and 4 and the case was adjourned for the examination of the witnesses. On 20-3-79, the complainant and the two witnesses were present and they were examined as Cws. 1 and 2 and the case was posted for further examination of witnesses, and after two adjournments two more witnesses were examined. On 25-6-79, the Magistrate stating that he was of opinion that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, issued summonses to the accused, directing the complainant to deposit the process fees.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner at the time of hearing submitted that really it is the order passed on 25-6-79 that is sought to be revised in this case and that it was under a mistake that this date was shown as 25-7-79 in the petition. The counsel very strongly contended that the learned Magistrate has gone beyond his jurisdiction in conducting an enquiry of this nature by issuing summons to witnesses; that the order passed on 20-3-79 is in effect an order of dismissal under S.203 Cr. P. C., that there is no power of 'review conferred on him under any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that having found that no case was made out against the accused by his order dated 20-3-79, he should have dismissed the complaint, and that the continuation of the proceedings after 20-3-79 amounts to review of that order which is illegal.