MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Police Station Jhajjar Kotli produced a challan against Mohari Singh, petitioner herein, for the commission of an offence punishable under S.447 RPC in the court of Sub-Registrar. Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. Learned Judicial Magistrate on Dec. 31, 1977 dismissed the challan and discharged the petitioner-accused finding no case against him to be made out in terms of S.249 Cr. P.C. Aggrieved by this order State filed a revision petition which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu who on Nov. 30, 1978 set aside the above said order of the learned Magistrate and sent the case back to him for further proceedings in accordance with Law. Petitioner being not satisfied with that order has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record before me. The first point canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Trial Magistrate was justified in invoking the provisions of S.249, Cr. P.C. as there was no material placed on record showing involvement of the petitioner under S.447, RPC. Learned Addl. Advocate-General has, however, argued that recourse to the provisions contained in S.249 Cr. P.C. is only to be taken in exceptional circumstances and the Trial Magistrate was thus not competent to dismiss the challan.

(3.) Section 249, Cr. P.C. authorises a Magistrate to stop the proceedings at any stage of the trial and for that he is to record his reasons. Sec. 241 Cr. P.C. to Sec. 245 prescribe procedure for the trial of summons cases by a Magistrate. Petitioner was involved in a case triable under such provision. Sec. 249 Cr. P.C. gives extra power to a Magistrate to stop the proceedings at any stage of the trial, if he finds that no case is made out against the accused. Bombay High Court in AIR 1960 Bom 481 has also come to a finding that where a Magistrate comes to the conclusion that no case, not even a prima facie case, under S.447, I.P.C. was made out, he was perfectly justified in stopping the proceedings under S.249 Cr. P.C. without first following- the procedure under S.242 to 244, Cr. P.C. In the present case learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the Trial Magistrate was not justified to invoke the provisions of S.249, Cr. P.C. which were required to be exercised in very exceptional circumstances. I, however, do not agree with this finding of the learned Sessions Judge. When there is no prima facie case and the trial court comes to such a conclusion, that court is fully justified to invoke the provisions of S.249 Cr. P.C.