RAYBHAN HANWANTA BHADNGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 47 of 2002, which came to be revived because of revisional order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2005.

(2.) The facts, which led to present proceedings, are as under : on 02. 07. 2001 Non-applicant No. 2 Kisan Namaji Bhise filed report before Police Station Officer, Darati about theft of a tree worth Rs. One Thousand by the present applicants. The police conducted investigation in the matter and filed "c" Summary before the Magistrate. Thereafter Non-applicant No. 2 Kisan Namaji Bhise filed complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umarkhed praying for cognizance being taken under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also prayed for rejection of "c" final Summary filed in Criminal Case No. 10/2001, by the police. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and ordered issuance of process for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

(3.) The complaint, on the basis of which cognizance was taken, could not be said to be a police case since the police had filed "c" summary on the basis of which the learned Magistrate had not taken cognizance. In fact, he took cognizance on the complaint of Non-applicant No. 2. Therefore, provisions, which would be applicable, are those contained in Section 242 and 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that though Section 244 and 245 (1) refer to taking evidence as may be tendered by the complainant, sub-section (2) of Section 245 categorically clarifies that a Magistrate is not prevented from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case, if for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate he considers the charge to be groundless. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, since the charge was groundless, the Magistrate has rightly discharged his clients. The learned counsel placed reliance on several judgments to support his contention that a Magistrate can exercise powers under Section 245 (2) without any evidence being recorded.