JAYSON VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Mavelikkara in CMP.No.408/2012 in C.C.No.107/2012. At the very outset, I may state that it is the non -reflection of the procedures followed by the learned Magistrate, at least in succinct, in the said order that paved way to this, otherwise avoidable, legal proceedings. An encapsulation of facts is necessary for the disposal of this case as also for understanding the raison d'etre for the said remark.

(2.) THE revision petitioners are arraigned as accused in the said case. The second respondent herein filed a private complaint viz., C.M.P.No.40/2012 alleging commission of offences under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the revision petitioners. That was taken on file as C.C.No.107/2012 by the learned Magistrate and, accordingly, ordered to issue summons under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the attendance of the revision petitioners as per the impugned order.

(3.) IN the circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the order impugned does not call for any interference on the aforesaid ground especially, in the light of the decision in Kacheru Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1982 SCC 784. It was held therein that summons issued to an accused by a Magistrate need not be quashed by a High Court for the reasons that if eventually the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that no offence was made out against the accused, he himself can pass an order of discharge or acquittal. In view of the said position, the second contention of the revision petitioners must also fail.