(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the cognisance taken by the Magistrate under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code and the order of commitment passed by the Seamed Magistrate on 3.3.1986.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, police submitted charge -sheet against accused Trilochan Sahu under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order of commitment against the petitioner who was not charge -sheeted by the police. From the records of the case, it appears that the police tiled charge -sheet against accused Trilochan under Section 489C. but the Magistrate on perusal of the entire case diary came to the conclusion that there were prima facie materials against Trilochan, Dhruba (the present petitioner) and Bhaskar under Section 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the said offence against there persons and issued summons fixing 5 -10 -1985 for their appearance by order dated 11.9.1985. Thereafter by order dated 3 -3 -1986 as the learned Magistrate found that the offences under Sections 489B/489C, Indian Penal Code, are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of Session
(3.) THE Magistrate having taken cognisance of the offences and after appearance of the accused before him, having come to the conclusion that the offences are triable exclusively by the Court of Session has committed the case to the Court of Session and in my opinion there is no legal infirmity in the same. The decision of the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this view of the matter I do not find any justification to quash the order of commitment in exercise -of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. There is no merit In this application which is accordingly dismissed.