MARIAMMAL AND P RAMADOSS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter is relating to the maintainability of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner herein was the complainant in Crime No. 705 of 1993 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, for the offences under Sections 447, 448 and 323, Indian Penal Code. The occurrence took place in 11 -10 -1993 and the First Information report also was lodged on the same day. However, the Thirumangalam Town Police, who initiated the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, did not file the charge sheet for more than an year and therefore, the accused therein filed Crl. M.P. No. 2864 of 1994 on 20 -10 -1994 under Section 167(5) and 468(2), Code of Criminal Procedure to stop the further proceedings and discharge them. The learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition discharging the accused persons. Aggrieved of that order, the complainant, who is the petitioner herein, has come forward to this Court and has filed the petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Selvam submitted that even though under Section 167(5), Code of Criminal Procedure, a specific period is mentioned for filing the charge sheet for the summons cases within a period of six months or else to stop the further proceedings, that in this case, the averments of the complaint is very specific for the offence under Section 506(ii), Indian Penal Code also and therefore the time for filing the charge sheet is not restricted to one year as misconceived by the learned Judicial Magistrate, that as the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the illegal order when he has no Jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 468(2), Code of Criminal Procedure the same can be questioned under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, according to the learned counsel, when the Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order but has pass on order under the assumption of power, the same can be questioned under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order. The learned counsel cited a decision of this Court in Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch v. Deepam and Anr. 1991 LW (Crl.) 568 which according to him, to having similar facts and the order was questioned invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.