KESARI PRABHAKARA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The de facto-complainant is the petitioner. On the basis of a complaint filed by him, the learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statements of the petitioner and another. Though the private complaint was filed by the petitioner against respondents 2 to 4 herein for the alleged offences committed by respondents 2 to 4 punishable under Ss. 323, 342, 352 and 500 and 506(2) read with S. 34, IPC the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, against the respondents 2 to 4, only under Ss. 323, 342, 352 and 500, IPC, but not with respect to the offence punishable under S. 506(2) r/w 34, IPC. The petitioner-de facto complainant had filed Crl. M.P. No. 569 of 1993 before the learned Magistrate requesting him to take cognizance of his complaint with respect to the offence under S. 506(2) r/w 34, IPC also, against respondents 2 to 4 herein. The learned Magistrate passed the following Order, on 26-2-1993 in Crl. MP No. 569/93 : "This Court already passed order on the complaint of the complainant taking the complaint on file under Ss. 323 and 342, 352 and 500, IPC. that means the complaint is dismissed for the offence punishable under S. 506(2), IPC. If at all the complainant is aggrieved on the orders of this Court, he must approach the appellate courts. At this stage, this court is not expected to include the S. 506(2) r/w 34, IPC since once the court is already passed order taking the complaint on file under Ss. 323, 342, 352 and 500 IPC. Hence the petition is dismissed as not maintainable." Sri Vinay kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of S. 203, Cr.P.C., it is mandatory that the Magistrate should state the reasons for dismissing the complaint and as no reasons are given in the impugned order, the same is not legally sustainable.

(2.) Learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 4, however, submits that if the complaint is thrown out in its entirety by the Magistrate, then alone the Magistrate has to record reasons for doing so, and no reasons need be recorded when the Magistrate refuses to take cognizance of the complaint only in respect of some of the offences alleged in the complaint.

(3.) A reading of the provisions of S. 203, Cr.P.C. clearly discloses that the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 is untenable. S. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads thus : "203. Dismissal of complaint :- If, after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under S. 202, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing". It is thus clear from the provisions of S. 203, Cr.P.C. that, if the complaint is thrown out either in its entirety or in part, it is mandatory that the Magistrate should record his reasons for not taking cognizance with respect to certain offences alleged.