PRAGATI K SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. is preferred against the Order dated 10-1-89 by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Jaipur City Jaipur took cognizance against the petitioners u/ss. 406, 420, 465 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) BEFORE hearing the arguments Shri Bazwa, learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 raised preliminary objection that the petition u/s. 482 is not maintainable on the ground that the order of taking cognizance was passed by the learned Magistrate after satisfying himself that prima facie case is made out to proceed for the offence alleged in the complaint. The learned counsellor the petitioner inspire of replying this legal objection argued the entire matter on the merit of the case.

(3.) IN the case of Khacheru Singh vs. State of U. P. (1) their Lordships have without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case observed that 'all that the learned Magistrate had done was to issue a summons to respondent No. 2-Satyavir Singh. If, event ually, the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that no offence was made out against Satyavir Singh, it will be open to him to discharge or acquit him, as the case may be. But it is difficult to appreciate why the order issuing summons to the accused should be quashed". IN this case the learned Magistrate took cognizance against Satyavir Singh. He went before Sessions Court and then the High Court. The Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and the High Court also confirmed the order of the learned Sessions Judge. When the matter came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and while observing, the order of the Sessions Judge and High Court was quashed and that of the learned Magistrate was restored.