Criminal Appln. No. 3279 of 1995. Case: P. K. Ramkrishna and others Vs Neelkanth M. Kamble and another. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appln. No. 3279 of 1995 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: G. R. Rege, Adv. and For Respondents: A. P. Mundergi with V. Gurumurthy, Advs. and Mrs. J. S. Pawar App. |
| Judges | V. Sahai, J. |
| Issue | Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Sections 190, 202 |
| Citation | 1996 CriLJ 2119 |
| Judgement Date | January 24, 1996 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
Heard Mr. G. R. Rege for the petitioners, Mr. A. P. Mundergi with Mr. V. Gurumurthy for Respondent No. 1 and Mrs. J. S. Pawar, APP for Respondent No. 2.
Rule, returnable forthwith by consent. Counsel for respondents waive service.
-
This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. arises in the circumstances stated hereinafter:
On 26-9-1991 a complaint was filed by Respondent No. I against the eight petitioners and others in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC) 2nd Court, Kalyan for offences under Section 418/409/166 IPC read with 114 IPC. The same day the JMFC recorded the statement of respondent No. 1 under Section 200 Cr. P.C. However, after perusing the papers and hearing counsel for the Respondent No. 1 he took the view that the question of issuing of process should be deferred till the police has enquired in the matter and consequently, called for a police report under Section 202 Cr. P.C.
The matter again came up before the JMFC., Kalyan on 25-10-1991 by which date, police report had not been received. Since the complainant was pressing for issuing process against the petitioners and others the learned Magistrate felt that it was not necessary in the interest of justice to wait for a police report. Accordingly after hearing the counsel for the complainant (respondent No. 1), he issued process against the eight petitioners and some others under Sections 418/409/166 of IPC., read with 114 of IPC.
The order issuing the process was challenged by the petitioners and others before the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane by means of a Criminal Revision which was dismissed on 21-8-1995 on the grounds that it was not maintainable and the pleas canvassed in the revision could be taken up before the Magistrate who under law could also recall the order issuing process.
-
It is in these circumstances that the order of the Magistrate dated 25-10-1991 issuing process against the petitioners and others has been challenged by means of the present petition.
The sheet anchor of Mr. Rege's submission is that inasmuch as the learned Magistrate felt on 26-9-1991 that the material for summoning the eight petitioners and some others was not sufficient, he thought it necessary to call for a police report under Section 202 Cr. P.C. Mr. Rege contends that admittedly on 25-10-1991, when the impugned order issuing process against the petitioners and some officers was passed by the Magistrate the police report had not been received. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial