RAJENDRAN Vs. PARAVASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai made in C.C.No.13 of 2007, on the file of his Court. The said order was passed on 14.12.2011 under Section 249 Cr.P.C., discharging the accused therein, who are the respondents in the revision case and dismissing the complaint. Questioning the correctness and legality of the said order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the present revision case has been filed. The revision petitioner is the complainant on whose private complaint the said calendar case came to be instituted.

(2.) THE submissions made by Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.J.Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 are heard. The materials placed in the form of typed-set of papers and also the records sent for from the court below are also perused.

(3.) IT is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an order of discharge under Section 249 Cr.P.C., can be passed only when the offence alleged is either compoundable or non-cognizable and that one of the offences alleged, namely an offence under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable and hence the question of discharging the accused under Section 249 Cr.P.C., will not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out the fact that the offence under Section 326 is a cognizable one. Section 249 Cr.P.C which gives power to the Magistrate to discharge the accused due to the absence of the complainant, reads as follows: "249.) Absence of Complainant:-- When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before the charge has been framed discharge the accused."