K. D. SHARMA (Actg.) C. J. - (1.) MOOL Chand petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court by way of an application under sec 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated July 19, 1978, so far as it relates to issuance of a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused non-petitioners under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated as follows :- Mool Chand petitioner filed a complaint against Nand Kishore and 14 other accused-non-petitioners under sections 323, 452 and 147. I. P. C. in the court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siker. The learned Magistrate enquired into the complaint and discharged the accused-non-petitioners on the ground that the complainant failed to prove a prima-facie case against them under sections 323, 452 and 147, I. P. C. Aggrieved by the order of discharge, Mool Chand complainant filed a revision-petition in the court of the Sessions Judge, Sikar. The learned Sessions Judge, after learning the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, came to a conclusion that the accused-non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 14 were rightly discharged by the learned Magistrate of all the offences punishable under sections 323, 452 and 147, I. P. C. The Sessions Judge further observed that in his opinion there were no reasonable grounds for making the accusation against any of the non-petitioners and so he called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused-non-petitioners and further directed that criminal proceedings under section 211, I. P. C. be initialed by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge so far as it relates to issuance of a notice to him to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused non-petitioners. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner has not challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge relating to initiation of criminal proceedings against him under section 211, I. P. C. Hence, I proceed to determine the legality of the order of the Sessions Judge, Sikar, only so far as it relates to calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused-non-petitioners. I have heard Mr. R. N. Khandelwal and Mr. M. I. Khan, Public Prosecutor, at length and perused the record. From a bare reading of section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is obvious that it is only the trying Magistrate who, by his order of discharge or acquittal, can order payment of compensation to be paid to the accused-non-petitioners, if, in his opinion, there was no reasonable ground for making the acquisition against them or any of them. The appellate court or the court exercising powers of revision has no jurisdiction to pass any order relating to payment of compensation under sec. 250, Cr. P. C. In the instant case, the trying Magistrate, while discharging the accused-non-petitioners, did not order compensation to be paid to them, nor did he call upon the petitioner complainant to show cause way he should not pay compensation to the accused-non-petitioners although he was of the view that there was no reasonable ground for making the acquisition against them. The Sessions Judge, Sikar, while confirming the order of discharge passed by the trying Magistrate, went wrong in calling upon the petitioner complainant to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused-non-petitioners. An order calling upon the complainant to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused is not a consequential or an incidental order within the meaning of clause (e) of sec. 386 or section 401, Cr. P. C. Hence, in my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, could not under section 401 read with section 386 (e) make an order for issuance of notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be asked to pay compensation to the accused-non-petitioners. A similar view was taken by the other High Courts in India in the following cases :- Chedi vs. Ram Lal (1), Aminullah vs. Emperor (2), Emperor vs. Mohammad Alan (3 ). The King vs. Maung khin Maung (4), and Baini Parshad vs. State (5) and also in Full Bench case of the Calcutta High Court in Mehi Singh vs. Mangal Khandu (6 ). Before parting with this case I may observe that Mr. R. N. Khandel-wal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. I. Khan, Public Prosecutor, ably argued the case before me and cited all possible authorities on this point. The result is that I accept the application under section 482, Cr. P. C. and set aside that part of the order of the Sessions Judge, Sikar, which directed issuance of notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused petitioners. The rest of the order shall stand. . ;