Kathan Maistry vs Muthuveera Maistry

Somasundaram, J.—The proceedings in this case were started on a private complaint. The case was taken on file only for an offence u/s 415, I. P. C. After hearing the witnesses the Court converted the calendar case into a P. B. case on the ground that the evidence disclosed an offence u/s 477, I. P. C. u/s 347 , Cr. P. C., in my opinion, the Court is entitled to do so, if the Magistrate is of opinion that the ca.se ought to be tried by the Sessions Court. The contention of Mr. Gopalaswami is that Section 347, Cr. P. C., ap-plies only to cases which are triable both by the Sessions Court as well as by the Magistrate and not to cases which are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Cases which are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court are cases which ought to be tried by the Sessions Court. In short, Mr. Gopalaswami wants to read into the section words not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. There is no warrant for it. The section as it stands permits the Magistrate to convert a calendar case into a P. R. case even in cases where in the course of enquiry the evidence discloses an offence exclusively triable by a Sessions Court. The procedure adopted by the Magistrate in converting the case into a P. R. case cannot be said to be irregular or illegal.

But what has happened is that subsequent to the filing of the revision the complainant and the accused have compounded the offence u/s 417 for which the case was taken on file and summonses were issued and have filed here a petition for permission. I hereby grant permission and the accused are acquitted of the offence of cheating.

The question now is that after acquitting the petitioner of the offence of cheating for which the case was taken on file the accused should be put on trial for the offence u/s 477. I looked into the complaint. I am not satisfied that the offence u/s 477 has been clearly made out. I am not suggesting that there is no case for committal. But in view of the fact that the accused have been acquitted of the offence of cheating for which alone the case was taken on file on a private complaint, I think the ends of justice do not require that further proceedings should continue. It is in this view that I quash the further proceedings in the case.