LexINDIA CARAT. PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A INDIA CARAT. PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. FEBRUARY 15, 1989 B [R.S. PATHAK, CJ, S. NATARAJAN )I, )o AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.) Criminal Procedure Code 1973: Sections 190, 200, 202, 203, 204 ~/- and 482-Magistrate directing registration of calendar case under Sections 408, 420 !PC and issue of summons-Jurisdiction of Magistrate c to deal with such complaints-High Court setting aside the Magistrate'" ·- order-Validity of ~ The appellant gave a report to the Commissioner of Police against the second respondent, alleging that he had committed the ofll"e11ces of cheating and criminal breach of trust. It was alleged that th'e :!eCOnd . D respondent, who was employed by the appellant as its Divisional Manager (Export-Import) had negotiated on behalf of the eippellant with an Italian firm for supply of quality granite stones and had obtained a letter of credit and availing the credit facility, had drawn a sum of Rs.13,69, 750 and misappropriated the amount. ;.-- ' E A case was registered and investigated, but subsequently the police sent a 'B' Report to the Court, stating that further inve:sti:gation was not required as the case was of a civil nature. Aggrieve1d by the .. report, the appellant approached the Second Additional Chle:f Metro- politan Magistrate for quashing the report and for permission to prove the commission of offences by the second respondent. The Magistrate ( ~--./ - F passed an order for<a calendar case being registered against the :iecond I respondent for offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 I.P.C. and for issuing summons to him. Thereupon the second respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court and sought the quashing of the G order of the Magistrate. The High Court allowed the petitio11 and set aside the order of the Magistrate on the ground that the Magistrmte had -f.. not followed the procedure for taking cognizance of the case and ussuing process to the accused after the police had sent a 'B' report in the case. According to the High Court, the Magistrate should have is8ued notice to the appellant to find out whether he was disputing the correctness of H the 'B' report and if so, to comply with the requirements of Section 200 ~ 718 ·-..:• INDIA CARAT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 719 of the Code. The High Court further stated that only after examining the appellant on oath and his witnesses, the Magistrate should have decided whether a case should be registered and process issued to the accused. Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the appellant has preferred A ~. X this appeal by special leave. B On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the second respondent had no locus to question the order of the Magistrate and • ":..' · 'that the Magistrate was justilied in taking cognizance of the offence and \ directing the issue of process to the second respondent. On behalf of the respondent, it was argued that since the Magis- + trate had not followed the procedure laid down in Section 200 or Section 202, the second respondent was entitled to seek quashing the order of the Magistrate, and the High Court was right in setting aside the order of the Magistrate. Allowing the appeal, HELD: I. On receipt of a complaint a Magistrate has several .., -+ courses open to him. The Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence at once and proceed to record statements of the complainant and the witnesses present under Section 200. After recording those statements, if in the opinion of the Magistrate there is no sufficient ground for pro- ceeding, he may dismiss the complaint nuder Section 203. On the other hand if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding he may I issue process under Section 204. If, however, the Magistrate thinks lit, ---·· . Jlie may postpone the issue of pl"OfesS and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by the police officer or such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. He may then issue process if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding or dismiss the complaint if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. Yet another course open to the Msgistrate is that instead of taking cognizance of the offence and. following the procedure laid down under )r Section 200 or Section 202, he may order an investigation to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.