VIMLA DEVI Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the order dated 11.5.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge of Vidisha whereby a direction was given to the Magistrate to make fresh inquiry in the matter and then proceed according to law on the complaint filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THIS order was passed u/s 398 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge while hearing the revision against the order passed by the learned Magistrate for proceeding to frame charges against the non -petitioners in pursuance of the evidence on record u/Ss. 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the provisions of section 398 Cr.P.C. were not attracted till either the complaint was dismissed or any person who was accused of the offence has been discharged in view of the facts of the case. The provisions of section 398 Cr.P.C. were not attracted since the required orders were not passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate was simply proceeding to frame charges, and therefore, the Sessions Judge was not competent to give direction u/s 398 Cr.P .C. for making further enquiry. The only order passed by the Magistrate was that he was satisfied that prima facie case was made out against the non -petitioners for framing charges and in this view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge either being found no evidence for framing charges the proceeding ought to have quashed or being there was any doubt regarding the charges to be framed against the non -petitioners, necessary direction should have been given regarding actual charges which could have been framed. The learned Sessions Judge was not empowered to direct fresh inquiry into the matter u/s 398 Cr.P.C. unless the contingency as provided in this section had arisen. No such contingency had arisen in this particular case and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is bad in law and be set aside.