BAJJI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the accused's petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing his commitment to the Court of Session for trial under Section 211 of the I. P. C. and also the Sessions Trial which is in advance mid stage of prosecution evidence.

(2.) STATION Officer of police station Sleennabad Tahsil Sehore filed a written complaint against the applicant-accused Bajji, under Section 211 of the I. P. C, in the Court of Magistrate First Class Sihore, alleging that the applicant-accused had lodged a written report dated 15-3-76 with the police that Mst. Bondobai's death had been caused by lathi assaults of one Sipe-hiya and that this report, on investigation by the police, was found to be false since, Mst. Bandobai had died a natural death. The Magistrate, on the filing of this complaint, immediately took the cognizance of the offence without examining the complainant, viz. the station officer of the police station Sleennabad, under Section 200 of the Code; and also without examining the complainant and all his witnesses under Section 202 of the Code, and issued the bailable warrant for appearance of the applicant-accused. After his appearance, and after hearing the parties, the applicant-accused, vide Magistrate's order dated 13-9-76, which is impugned before me, was committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial under Section 211 of the I. P. C. After the accused's commitment to the Court of Session the learned Sessions Judge, after considering all such papers and documents, as already filed along with the complaint, framed the charge, on U-10-76, under Section 211 of the I. P. C, against the applicant-accused. Evidence of eight prosecution witnesses was recorded thereafter; and when the case was fixed for adducing remaining evidence on 4-11-76, the applicant-accused filed an application before the Court of Session for quashing the commitment proceedings on the ground of 'illegality' inasmuch as, the complainant and all his witnesses were not examined, as was required to be done by the mandatory provision viz. proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Cr. P. C. 1973. The learned Sessions Judge held that the complaint filed by the Station Officer, Sleennabad was a "police report", covered under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code; and as such, the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of offence, upon such police report; and consequently, the procedure prescribed under Sections 202 (2) and 208 of the Code in the matter of "private complaints" was not applicable. o the case and the Magistrate was right in committing the case to the Court of Session, in accordance with Section 209 of the Code, without examining the complainant or his witnesses. The applicant-accused's petition, was therefore, dismissed. Hence now, his present petition under Section 482 of the Code.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant-accused has urged before me that the offence under Section 211 of the I. P. C, being a non-cognizable offence, which could not be investigated by the officer in-charge of the police station without sanction of the Magistrate, as enjoined by Section 155 (2) of the Code, the complaint could not be treated as a "police report" and could only be treated as a "private complaint", necessitating, therefore, the compliance of the procedure enjoined. by Sections 202 (2) and 208 of the Code; and this being not done, commitment proceedings and so also the consequent Session: Trial, deserved to be quashed.