LAWS(GJH)-1982-8-16

SHANTIBHAI SOMABHAI RAVAL Vs. MADHUKANT T SHUKLA

Decided On August 19, 1982
SHANTIBHAI SOMABHAI RAVAL Appellant
V/S
Madhukant T Shukla Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application making a grievance against issue of process by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Narol on the strength of the complaint filed by opponent no.1 Madhukant T. Shukla (original complaint) against the petitioner. The case of opponent no. 1-complainant was that the petitioner had purchased a tractor from the complainant. As the tractor was not in working order the petitioner is alleged to have told the original complainant that the tractor was to be brought for repairs but because the wheat season was going on he may be helped by giving another tractor. So an unregistered tractor was given to the petitioner. As the petitioner did not return either the old tractor or the new tractor a complaint was given by the original complainant before the police. It was the grievance of the complainant that the police did not make proper investigation did not record statements and merely attempted to rely on a counter-foil of the cheque alleged to have been issued by the petitioner to the complaint though in fact no cheque was issued and it was not encased in the Bank etc. and therefore he filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate. On the strength of this complaint process was issued. The petitioner has come with a grievance against that order of process.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is quite justified in view of the provisions of sec. 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as the Code) which is to the following effect:

(3.) Mr. B. C. Patel learned Advocate for the petitioner of course rightly argued that the contents of the complaint itself show that the original complainant had already given a complaint to the police which was under investigation but the only grievance was that the investigation was not proper. At any rate according to Mr. B C. Patel when the contents of the complaint show that the original complainant had given the complaint to the police and it was under investigation then the learned Magistrate should have followed the procedure as required under sec. 210 of the Code. He is quite justified. It however seems that the attention of the learned Magistrate was not at all drawn to sec. 210 of the Code which is a new provision. If it would have been brought to his notice probably he would have taken recourse to that provision.