- (1.)ORDER :- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20-6-1997 passed by the learned Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Billawar (in Challan No. 81 of 1992 titled State v. Rasila Ram and others, offences under Sections 147, 447, 325, 323, 504, R.P.C.). In terms of the said order, the learned trial Magistrate had arrayed petitioner No. 7 namely, Subash Chander as an accused along with the other already arraigned accused who are petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 herein. In the report made before the police accusations were levelled against him (petitioner No. 7) also but the police during investigation had released him under Section 169, Cr.P.C. holding that there was no sufficient evidence to justify his forwarding as an accused to the Magistrate. The trial Court after taking the cognizance of the offences recorded the evidence of the prosecution (petitioners Nos. 1 to 6) under the provisions of Section 342, Cr.P.C. He then heard the arguments of the prosecution and the defence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses Harish Chander, Smt. Rano Devi and Smt. Ganesho Devi had deposed against petitioner No. 7 (Subash Chander) to the effect that he had inflicted a fist blow on the mouth of said Smt. Rano Devi which had broken her one tooth. The medical evidence lent corroboration that one tooth from the upper jaw was severed. On these facts the trial Magistrate arrayed Subash Chander as accused No. 7 and then issued process for securing his presence. The order has been challenged on the sole ground that the learned trial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to issue the process. However, it is admitted that at the most the trial Magistrate could ask the police to file a supplementary challan.
(2.)Heard the counsel for the petitioners.
(3.)The learned counsel has reiterated that order may be set aside as has been passed without any authority of law. He has contended that the learned Magistrate could take cognizance of an offence under Section 190, Cr.P.C. but only in the modes prescribed therein and not otherwise. These modes are-
(1) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (2) Upon a report in writing of such facts made by the police officer; (3) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge or suspicion that such offence has been committed.