IYYAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the Accused to quash the proceedings in S. T. C. No. 990 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Uthagamandalam.

(2.) Though notice was served on the second Respondent and his name also printed in the cause list, he has not appeared either in person or through his counsel. Hence, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent, order is being passed in this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the second respondent has summoned the petitioner under Sections 160 and 91 of Cr. P. C, relating to the case in Cr. No. 232 of 2016. He further submitted that since the petitioner is residing at Chennai, as per Section 160 of Cr. P. C. , he cannot send summons to the petitioner. He further submitted that after receipt of the summons, since the petitioner was not well, he sent a letter with medical certificate to extend the time, but without considering the same, the Second Respondent has lodged a complaint before the first respondent and based on the same, the first respondent has registered a case in Cr. No. 129 of 2017 under Section 174 of IPC. He further submitted that the first respondent after registering the F. I. R. , investigated the matter and filed a Final Report and based on the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam has taken the case on file in S. T. C. No. 990 of 2017. He further submitted that in respect of the offence under Section 174 of IPC, the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the case based on the Police report, in view of the specific bar under Section 195 of Cr. P. C, and therefore he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in S. T. C. No. 990 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam.