RAJIV AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceeding against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 78 of 1994 pending in the court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Jhansi. It has been stated that by an order dated 8.11.1994 the learned Judge summoned the applicants as accused under Section 387/504/506, I.P.C.

(2.) ON behalf of the State learned A.G.A. is present.

(3.) IN this respect learned counsel has referred the case of Mukut Singh and others v. State of U. P., (Cr. Misc. Application No. 1973 of 1990) wherein Hon'ble Judge has differed with the view taken by this Court in cases reported in 1986 L.F. 719, 1987 U.P. Criminal Rulings 37 and 1988 Cr LJ 72 where it was held that provisions of Sections 200 to 204, Cr. P.C. will not be applicable in a complaint case lodged before the special Judge under the D.AA. Act. But I agree with the view taken by Hon'ble Judge in Mukut Singh's case and of the opinion that in view of Section 7 (3) of D. A A. Act, provisions of Cr. P.C. under Section 200 to 204 are applicable when the D. A. A. Act is silent on that point and when it is not inconsistent with the said Act. But I am not in favour of referring the matter to a larger bench since it will cause nothing but delay. Moreover, I find that Section 7 (3) of D. A. A. Act is specific on this point. IN the instant case I do not consider that special Judge has to follow the procedure laid down in Section 200 (2), Cr. P.C. as urged by the learned counsel for the applicants since the offence complained of is triable by Magistrate. Learned Special Judge has examined the complaint and his two witnesses before summoning the accused-applicants and I do not find any wrong in the procedure which would call for interference at this end by invoking inherent power of this Court.