SATPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant.

(2.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order of Magistrate dated 22-12-2004 and also against the order dated 11-7-2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in his revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) REPLYING to the aforesaid piece of argument, the learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 2 has submitted that non-compliance of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202 Cr. P. C. by the Magistrate does not vitiate the case nor the further trial unless such non-compliance prejudices the accused, as such. The mandate of the proviso is not absolute. He has also submitted that the enquiry envisaged in Chapter XV of the Code is discretionary only. Such enquiry is not an indispensable course for issue of process against the accused. In this context the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Rosy & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. , 2000 (1) JIC 815 (SC) : 2000 (40) ACC 444 (SC ).