K JAGADEESAN Vs. JOHN THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.5357 of 1991 which was taken on file by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. He gave a complaint against the accused respondent for an offence under Sec.500, I.P.C. for defamation. THE accused respondent filed a petition before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.693-A/94, for discharge from the case and the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai accepted his plea and discharged him from the case. Hence, this revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner filed a complaint before the V Metropolitan Magistrate and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.5357 of 1991 and while the same was pending, a quash petition was filed by the accused in Crl.O.P.No.2189 of 1993, and the same was dismissed on 30.11.1993. In the meantime P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined in chief, but their evidence remained unchallenged and they were not cross examined. While so, the respondent accused filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.1620 of 1994, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for transferring the case from the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate and his request was accepted and the case was transferred to IV Metropolitan Magistrate by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate thereafter. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the accused has filed Cri.M.P.No.693-A of 1994, for discharge before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate and the same was ordered. THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is not proper since he has not considered that the complainant is the Director of K.J. Hospital.

(3.) THERE are several stages in a criminal trial when a private complaint is filed. The Court which records the sworn statement of complainant as well as the statement of witnesses as produced by the complainant, after considering those statements, has to decide whether the complaint has to be taken cognizance of or to be dismissed under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. Once the complaint is not dismissed under Sec.203, Crl.P.C., the next seep is to act under Sec.204, Crl.P.C. to issue process to the accused concerned to effect their appearance before the Court. Once the trial has started and the witnesses have been examined, Sec.203 cannot be applied for dismissing the complaint, because the stage has passed and the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. Likewise, under Sec.204, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with, he may issue process for the attendance of the accuse d. Sub-sec.(4) to Sec.204, Crl.P.C. says that no process shall be issued until the fees are paid by the complainant, if by any law, process fees has to be paid by him. In case, process was not taken, again under Sec.204(4), the Magistrate has got every power to dismiss the complaint for want of taking process for the attendance of the accused. While interpreting this Section heir Lordships have said in the abovesaid ruling that though the case is a summons case and though there was no specific provision for dropping the proceedings in a summons case, the accused can appear and inform the Court that there is no allegation in the complaint involving the accused in the commission of the crime and it is open to the accused to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him ought not to have issued. If the Magistrate is satisfied, he may drop the proceedings on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. If such an application has not been filed by the accused, after he enters appearance in response to summons, the same cannot be filed by him after the Court started recording evidence.