MAROTRAO GANPATRAO JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This a revision application challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati. Setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate First Class, Amravati, purporting to be under S. 249, Cr. P. C., stopping the proceedings started by the police on a complaint against the applicant under S. 447, I.P.C. for criminal trespass.

(2.) The learned Magistrate first class, Amravati, issued process and without following the procedure for the trial of summons cases contained in Ss. 241 to 245, Cr.P.C. he passed an order under S. 249, Cr. P. C., holding that he did not think that any case under S. 447, I. P. C., can be said to be made out even prima facie. the order passwed by him is as follows:

(3.) The complainant then went in revision and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate holding that the Magistrate cannot pass an order under s. 249 without following the procedure of trial under Ss. 241 to 245 (Chapter XX), Cr.P.C. He also held that the provisions of S. 249 have to be resorted to in exceptional cases and where there are special circumstances justifying such an order. He also found fault with the order of the Magistrate in discharging the accused. According to the learned Sessions Judge, such an order in not at all warranted by the wording of S. 249, Cr. P. C. The learned sessions Judge also observed that if the learned Magistrate was of the view that no offence under S. 447 I.P.C., was even prima facie proved, the learned Magistrate should have followed the proper procedure under S. 242 to 244 and acquitted the accused but that he was not justified in passing an order under S. 249, Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, passed an order under s. 436, Cr. P.C., setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate, and he directed further enquiry into the complaint.