QASIM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants have been summoned under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 I. P. C. as per order dt. 19. 2. 1983, Annexure 4. It would appear that the police submitted a final report in this case. A protest petition was preferred and the Magistrate' then passed the following order:

(2.) IT is urged that the order is illegal and without jurisdiction and is a of 4 non-speaking order and was based mechanically and the Magistrate was bound lo follow the procedure for a complaint case which the Magistrate has failed to do and there was no provision for issuing warrant and the Magistrate could only direct a further investigation and police was right in submitting a final report. It was also stated that there is a cross case initiated at the instance of some of the opposite parties with a cross version in which charge sheet was submitted.

(3.) THIS Court cannot enter into the question of facts which are to be considered by the Magistrate. Simply because there is a cross case also, any prosecution would not be barred. It is for the court to decide during trial the merits of cross cases. The main argument advanced is that the protest petition falls within the definition of Section 2 (d) of the Cr. P. C. and on the authority of the case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Misra the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. should have been followed. It is further urged that in the case reported in also the same view was taken. A number of pronouncements of other, High Courts were cited but this Court will be guided by the Supreme Court pronouncement as well as the earlier pronouncements of this Court.