V M KHASIM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the orders of the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad dated 25-8-1980 ordering issue of non-bailable warrant against the accused as he was absent on that day.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that a complaint was lodged against (he accused and the Central Crime Station, Team VII, Hyderabad registered a case against the accused for offences punishable under sections 420, 421 and 422 IPC r/w 12 of the Passport Act in Crime No, 22/80. Under Sec. 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the F, I. R. was sent to the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, The accused was arrested on 7-4-1980 and eventually he was enlarged on bail on 10-4-1980 by the learned Magistrate on condition that he should report to the Investigating Officer twice a week. On 29-4-1980 the police authorities filed a final report in the court of the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate treating the case as of civil nature. Subsequently on 24-5-1980 the llth Metropolitan Magistrate reopened the F.I.R. on the strength of a letter dated 5-5-1980 filed by the investigating officer and was calling the F.I.R. once in a month to ascertain from the investigating agency about the filing of the charge-sheet. While so, the Magistrate was insisting on the presence of (he petitioner (accused) on every date of adjournment even though no charge-sheet was filed until now. The petitioner could not attend the court on 28-8-1980. Consequently the learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant. It is this order of the learned Magistrate which is sought to be quashed.

(3.) Mr. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned abvocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that FIR is sent to the court by the police authorities under sec. 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and then after the completion of the investigation, the investigating authority files a chargesheet under sec. 173 (2). So far no charge-sheet has been filed. In the first instance, the investigating authority has reported to the learned Magistrate that the case was of a civil nature. Once again under Sec. 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police authorities requested the Magistrate to reopen the FIR which was done. Admittedly no charge-sheet has been filed so far. Mr. Padmanabha Reddy contends that it is only under sec. 190 (1) (b) the court can take cognizance of the offence after the chargesheet is filed and therefore issue process under Sec. 204. Since the charge-sheet has not been filed so far, there is no question of issuing process against the accused as the court has not taken cognizance of the offence. When such is the position, submits the learned advocate, it was incorrect on the part of the lower court to issue a non-bailable warrant against the accused.