M JALALUDDIN Vs. SYED IBRAHIM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against an order of the learned Third Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, dismissing under S. 203, Crl.P.C. the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner alleging an offence under S. 420, I.P.C. The two grounds on which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint are:- (1) That the complaint and the sworn statement did not disclose any such offence and (2) that there was inordinate delay in the filing of the complaint. With regard to the second ground I must straightway state that solely on the ground that there was delay in preferring a complaint, the complaint cannot be dismissed under S. 203, Crl.P.C: This has been made clear by the Supreme Court in Asst. Customs Collector Bombay v. L.R. Melwani, 1970 AIR(SC) 962. The Supreme Court has observed in that case as follows:

(2.) Coming now to the other ground, viz., that the allegations made in the complaint and the sworn statement do not make out any offence, I am afraid that the learned Magistrate has overlooked S. 415, I.P.C. S. 445, I.P.C. defining the offence of cheating runs thus:

(3.) Before parting with the case, it is also necessary to refer to the fact that the office by inadvertently, I presume, sent a notice to the respondents and Mr. Panchapakesan appeared for the respondents and wanted to argue on behalf of the respondents. But then, since this revision is against an order of dismissal of a complaint under S. 203, Crl.P.C. the accused does not come into the picture at all and as such has no right of audience before this court, when the dismissal of the complaint under S. 203, Crl.P.C. is challenged. Miss. Yijayalakshmi on behalf of the petitioner vehemently objected to Mr. Panchapakesan arguing on behalf of the respondent Therefore, I said that I would hear the arguments of Mr. Panchapakesan as amicus curiae. But, it must be made dear that in a revision against an order dismissing a complaint under S. 203, Crl. P.C. the accused has no locus standi to appear and seek to be heard on it. This has been made clear by the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Deo v. Prakash Chandra, 1963 AIR(SC) 1430. The decision of Ramaprasada Rao, J. in R. Gopalakrithnan v. P.A.C.R. Ramasubramania Raja and others, 1972 LW(Cri) 39 is also brought to my notice. But, I have in T. Kannappa and I. Narayana Chettiar v. Karamuthu S. Chockalingam S.C.P. 95/76 (S.C.P. 95/76 in Crl. R.C. 728/75 and Crl. M.P. 483 and 490/76) and Crl. M.P. 483 and 490/76) and in Crl.R.C. 728 of 1975 (reported in 1976 L.W. (Crl.) 60) discussed the judgments in the aforesaid cases and I do not want to reiterate the same. However, in my view, the decision of the Supreme Court clearly shows that until a process under S. 204is issued to an accused person, the accused does not come into the picture at all. That means he cannot at that stage of the matter come into the picture either before the trial court or even before the High Court when the dismissal of the complaint is challenged.