M PALANIADRAN Vs. G RAVICHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a proposed accused for an offence punishable under Sections 465, 379 and 506 (ii) IPC on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi. The learned Magistrate after taking the private complaint on his file, without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under the Criminal procedure Code, straightaway issued summons to the accused for appearance and for answering the charges. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code having not been followed. Sworn statement of the complainant has not been taken and materials have not been received and only on satisfaction of those materials, if prime facie case is made out, thereafter such issuance of summons could be done.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, wherein in paragraphs 13 and 14, it is held as follows:

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent in this regard. It has been submitted that the private complaint has been taken on file.