LAXMI KISHORE TONSEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE made returnable forth with. Mr. Palekar, learned A. P. P. waives service. By, consent, petition on board for final hearing.

(2.) HAS a Magistrate jurisdiction to issue show cause notice to the accused when he holds an enquiry or investigation under section 202 of the; Cr. P. C. into a complaint of which he is empowered to take cognizance is the question raised in this petition.

(3.) THE petitioner has field a complaint on 28th May, 1992 in Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate XXI Court, Bandra; Bombay against (1) Kishore So. Tonsekar and (2) Manorama M. Tonsekar for the offences punishable under sections 403, 406 and 408 read with sections 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also filed application under section 93 of the Cr. P. C. for issuance of search warrant against the accused. On 4th June, 1992, the learned Magistrate recorded the verification of the said complaint by examining the petitioner on oath. The learned Magistrate then adjourned the case from time to time for argument on the point of issue of process against the accused. On 22nd June, 1992, the learned Magistrate passed an order to issue show cause notices to the accused persons. The order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate reads as under: Complainant is the wife of accused No. 1 and daughter-in-law of accused No. 2. There is matrimonial dispute between accused and complainant since 1984. There are other litigations pending in other courts also. Considering these above facts and allegations in the complaint to enquire the said case under section 202 of Cr. P. C. is necessary but instead sending to police it is better to enquire court himself. So to take statements of the accused are sufficient at the fast instance hence issue Show Cause Notice to both accused as to why process should not be issued against them as prayed by the complainant.