- (1.) 6/04.05.2012 This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the Order dated 24.11.2000, passed by the Court below and also the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. C/535 of 1996.
(2.) IT is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 had filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi which was registered as C/535 of 1996 on 07.11.1996 and the said complaint was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class on 28.11.1996 for holding an enquiry. The transferee Court conducted an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioners to face trial under Sections 147/ 148/ 323/ 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In pursuance to the summons issued, the petitioners appeared and they were facing trial. In course of trial, a petition was filed before the learned Magistrate with a prayer to drop the proceedings since the cognizance was taken after the period of limitation and that petition was filed under Section 468(2)(C) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate had given opportunity to the other side and the rejoinder was also filed. After hearing them, an order dated 24.11.2000 was passed and the petition under Section 468(2)C) filed by the petitioner was rejected and hence this Criminal Misc. Petition. It is submitted that for the same incident, the petitioner no. 1 - Sakal Deo Singh had lodged a case at Bariatu Police Station against the opposite party no. 2 vide Bariatu Police Station Case No. 81 of 1996, dated 05.08.1996. The opposite party no. 2, behind the back, had filed this complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No. C/535 of 1996 after three months without disclosing the fact that he was also an accused in Bariatu Police Station Case No. 81 of 1996 and was also remanded to jail custody. Certified copy of the Order dated 06.01.1997, by which the petitioners were directed to face trial, was not given to them, which is apparent from Annexure-5. They did not get the opportunity to challenge the order in time and, therefore, they have raised their grievance in this Criminal Misc. Application praying therein that the prosecution against them is malicious, unwarranted and the same is liable to be quashed including the Order dated 24.11.2000 in view of the Judgment reported in 1992 (Suppl.) SCC 338 [State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal]. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the arguments and submitted that the order dated 06.01.1997 was not an order of cognizance rather, it was an order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. by which the petitioners were directed to face trial. There was only irregularity in the said order that it was not signed by the Presiding Officer and for that reason, the certified copy of the same was not served to the petitioners. As a matter of fact, in a complaint case, since the Magistrate applies his mind by going through the contents made in the complaint and transfer the same under Section 192 Cr.P.C., the cognizance of the offence is presumed to be taken and, therefore, the prayer that the cognizance was barred by limitation and it was liable to be quashed under Section 468 (2C) Cr.P.C., is not maintainable. It is further submitted that in a warrant trial, after charge is framed and the trial commenced, the Magistrate has no power to drop the proceeding. The impugned order dated 24.11.2000 is quite correct and needs no interference. It is also pointed out that the Judgment as cited by the petitioners is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. If both the parties have raised allegations against each other constituting offence against each of them, the trial must go on and both the parties may be given opportunity to adduce their evidence in favour of their respective cases. Only because the opposite party no. 2 has not disclosed the Police case instituted against them, is not sufficient to quash the entire criminal case field by the opposite party no. 2.
(3.) I have gone through the documents placed before me. It appears that the order dated 06.01.1997 remained unsigned by the then Presiding Officer and that was the reason the certified copy was not supplied to the petitioners. If the order remained unsigned, it is an irregularity which can be cured by the Court at any stage before pronouncement of the Judgment. If the said order remained unsigned till date, the Magistrate, who is in seisin of the case record, is competent enough to sign the said order by giving the date on which the order was passed and the date on which he will be going to sign. I do agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 that in warrant trial case, if the charge is framed and trial commenced, the Magistrate has no power to stop the trial before concluding it. I also agree with the view that the order dated 06.01.1997 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioners to face trial is not an order taking cognizance rather it is an order by which the Magistrate satisfies himself that prima facie evidence adduced during enquiry constitute an offence to summon the accused named in the complaint and for that no limitation is applicable. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, it is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to raise their points before the Court concerned at an appropriate stage during trial. Consequently, the interim order dated 02.03.2001 staying the further proceedings in connection with Complaint Case C/535 of 1996, then pending in the Court of Sri A.K. Jaiswal, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi stands vacated. If required, the Court below shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.;