LAWS(MAD)-1996-7-9

V P ZACKRIA Vs. MAHAVIR INVESTMENTS

Decided On July 11, 1996
V.P.ZACKRIA Appellant
V/S
MAHAVIR INVESTMENTS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision was sought to be admitted on the only ground that the issuance of summons to the petitioner/accused is not the resultant factor of the application of mind before the court below while entertaining the complaint for allegedly taking cognizance of any offence under the Indian Penology. Mr.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made an honest attempt to convince me that since the entertaining of the very complaint by the learned Magistrate is the resultant factor of the non-application of mind, and as such no offence can be taken cognizance of, ordering the issuance of summons resulted in the failure of justice to the parties and that therefore, even on the receipt of the summons from the trial court, the revisional jurisdiction sought for before this court to set aside the said summons can be entertained.

(2.) IN the light of the settled position of law by the High Court as well as the Apex court under sections 201 to 204 of the code of criminal procedure, it is needless for me to traverse once again for all the negates the proposition of law on this court and it is the basic principle of criminal justice that on receipt of the summons for its tenability or otherwise, it is for the person who receives the summons must approach the court below at the earliest to get the remedy there itself and get his grievance vindicated. INstead, however, bypassing the said availability by ignoring the same for one reason or without any reason and approaching this court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction, may in a way or otherwise stultify the very basic fabric of procedural law in built under the code of criminal procedure though not as a matter of right but in the interest of the administration of criminal justice system, it is deducible that the court below at the earliest point of time must be approached for the redressal of the proper legal remedy. INstead, taking every effort to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this court in the absence of any order by the court below cannot be held to be a sound and health trend of procedure being allowed to follow.

(3.) IN the light of the directions and observations given above, I find that no reason or occasion to admit this revision at this stage. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.MP.No.2080 of 1996 is also dismissed.