- (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
(2.) THE petitioner in this instant petition has prayed for quashing the order of cognizance passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby, after taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 406/409/467/468/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the learned court below had issued summons directing the petitioner and several other persons to face trial. Counsel for the petitioner assail the impugned order whereby, the petitioner was directed to appear and face trial, on the ground that such order is bad and not in consonance with the procedure of law.2006(1) JLJR 186 and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in AIR 2000 SC 3725.
(3.) COUNSEL for the State, on the other hand, would argue that under the provisions of Section 190 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and also to issue process against the accused persons even by differing with the opinion as expressed by the Investigating Officer in the police report. In order to gain support to his arguments, learned counsel refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Md. Habibullah Khan as reported in (2003)12 SCC 129.;