B.S. Dhillon, J. - (1.) SMT . Daropti filed a complaint against the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, under Sections 427/436/34 of the Indian Penal Code, complaining that Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 set on fire her Jhuggi on June 5, 1974, at about 9.30 p.m. It has been alleged that since the local police was helping the accused persons, therefore, the case was not registered. The motive for the alleged crime as stated in the complaint, is that Chandgi accused, who was arrayed as a Respondent, wanted to marry Smt. Kamla daughter of the complainant to his son but the complainant refused saying that the accused was not from her brotherhood. Therefore, they started harassing the complainant and her family members. On the preliminary evidence having been recorded, the learned' trial Magistrate vide his order dated 20th July, 1974, found sufficient grounds for prosecuting the accused under Sections 427/436/34 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the accused for August 17, 1974. He again summoned the evidence of the complainant for October 24, 1974 vide his order dated September 27, 1974. The Petitioner challenged this order of the learned Magistrate summoning - the evidence afresh on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to go into this question again, he having prima facie found that the Respondents are liable to be prosecuted for offences under Sections 427/436/34 of the Indian Penal Code, he has no option but to' commit the Respondents to the Court of Session for the Sessions trial as the offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code is an offence which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. It is on this law point that this petition was admitted.
(2.) SHRI Y. P. Gandhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently contends that there is no jurisdiction vested in the Magistrate to record evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the complaint afresh and then to come to an independent conclusion whether the accused should be committed to the Court of Session or not. This proposition of law is in fact conceded by Shri Harrinder Singh, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the Respondents. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be referred to. Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deals with the subject of complaints to Magistrate. Section 200 provides that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate.
(3.) UNDER Section 203, the Magistrate is empowered to dismiss the complaint after considering the statement on oath of the complainant or of any other witnesses produced by him, if in his opinion, there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint.;