STEEL RAVI Vs. KPS JAYACHANDRAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the discharge of the accused/respondents of offences under Section 304 and 394, IPC, in a private complaint, by Judicial Magistrate III, Erode in Crl. M.P.No. 2334 of 2002 in P.R.C.No. 7 of 2001.

(2.) THE circumstances under which the said order came to be passed is as follows:

(3.) IT may not be necessary to go into the details of the case, since nothing much was argued in so far as the complainant/petitioner is concerned, with regard to the facts of the case. The only argument raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/petitioner is that the learned Magistrate once having taken cognizance of the offence in a case exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions (offence under Section 304 and 394, IPC), on a private complaint, has no powers to subsequently discharge the accused. His contention is to the effect that the learned Magistrate has to necessarily commit it to the Court of Sessions and it is only the Court of Sessions, which has the power either to discharge the accused or make it over to the concerned Court for trial, after considering the case on merits. I see considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner.