M CHENNAIAH Vs. K JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant filed a complaint alleging that her husband K. Ramaiah Naidu and her brother M. Chinnaswamy Naidu availed a joint loan for purchase of a tractor from Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Pakala. A tractor was purchased and they had been paying the instalments of loan without default. There was a subsidy granted by the Government to the extent of 51/2% The subsidy granted for the year 1990 was adjusted against the instalment payable in the year 1991, likewise the subsidy granted for the year 1991 was to be adjusted towards the instalment for the year 1992. But, on25-6-1992at 12.00noon the accused who were officials of Agricultural Development Bank, Chittoor, Co-operative Central Bank, Pakala and Primary Agricultural Credit Society, Pakala trespassed into her house in the absence of any male member and attempted to grab the movable properties. They informed the complainant that her husband had failed to pay the instalments and they asked her to part with her golden black beeds chain weighing 29.100 grams which was worn by her. It is submitted that she was threatened to part with the chain. She was also threatened that she will be handed over to the Police. During the incident the complainant's younger son also came to the house. He was also threatened to make payment and under threat an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was recovered from him also. An Onida Television worth Rs. 20,000/- was also attached. This complaint was referred to Police under Section 156 (3) for investigation. Police investigated the matter and reported that nothing illegal was done by the accused and as a matter of fact they were permitted by law to enter into the house of the loanee and attach immovable properties. They also found during investigation that no threatening was given to the complainant. But, it is obvious that golden chain held by a women would not have been given voluntarily. However, the Magistrate agreed with the Police and after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. A revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge found that, prima facie this was an offence of dacoity and ordered enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. He also opined that prima facie case appears to be triable by a Sessions Judge. Therefore, he directed the Magistrate to record the statement of the witnesses of the complainant. This order has been challenged, therefore this petition.

(2.) Many judgments have been pressed into service by both the parties, but I am of the view that no reference is needed to be given to these authorities at this point of time. Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that if an offence appears to be an offence exclusively triable by a Sessions Judge then the Magistrate shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them. After the witnesses are examined Section 203 will come into operation and Magistrate will have to decide whether cognizance of the matter has to be taken or not, and in case he finds that cognizance has to be taken and there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, he shall pass appropriate orders and in case if he finds that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding, he can drop the proceedings. In any case the matter has been referred to the Magistrate for enquiry. If he finds that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding, he can drop the proceedings and if he finds that there are sufficient grounds he may well proceed under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. At present the petitioners who are not even accused at this point of time have no cause of action against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as the matter has only been ordered to be enquired into.

(3.) For these reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.