SONAL K AMEEN Vs. NEENA V PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the petitions have been filed against the common order passed in Complaint Case No. 272/12 dated 16.1.12 by Judl. Magistrate Ist Class, Jabalpur by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 477/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), so they are being decided by this common order. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners do not want to press the relief of quashment of the aforesaid charge at this stage and made a request that they will agitate it before the appropriate forum at appropriate time. So, the only prayer is that since only 5 witnesses have been examined, so no further witness should be permitted to be examined in the Sessions Court as some offences, i.e., offences punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 and 477 of IPC are exclusively triable by Court of Sessions by Madhya Pradesh Act 2 of 2008, and case is to be committed and will be tried by Court of Sessions. Section 202(2) proviso of Cr.P.C. is mandatory so no other witness should be allowed to be examined except the witnesses already examined by complainant no. 2 himself and other Court witnesses.

(2.) For clarifying the legal position, it is necessary to quote the provisions relating to complaint case which are as under :-

(3.) Learned Counsel for petitioners placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Rosy and another vs. State of Kerala and others, 2000 2 SCC 230 in which it has been held as per majority that for cognizance it is not necessary to examine all witnesses of complainant, complainant may examine the witnesses of his choice for making out a prima facie case. As per Hon'ble Thomas, J. provisions of Section 208 of Cr.P.C. requiring the Magistrate to furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of the documents, etc. is mandatory.