Mohd. Siddique vs Adbul Sattar

M. Wahajuddin, J.—The applicant has been summoned u/s 392, IPC, read with Section 34, IPC, and later charged under Sections 392, 342 and 506, IPC and the orders in question are Annexures "3" and "4". He has come forward with a prayer that the complaint may be quashed. Affidavit was filed in support of the same. Counter-affidavit has been filed, rejoinder-affidavit was also given and a supplementary-affidavit has also been filed.

The first point, as also taken in the application, was that the statements under Sections 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, do not tally and it was further urged that only one witness was examined u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter stands completely resolved by the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan AIR 1982 SC 67 reiterating the principles laid down in earlier Supreme Court pronouncements starting with the leading case of R.P. Kapoor. This Court in the exercise of its inherent powers will simply consider whether the materials before the Magistrate, i. e., complaint and the statements under Sections 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, if any, disclose a prima facie case. It cannot function as a court of fact to scrutinise the evidence, nor will it consider as to what defence the other side may be taking. When that is the position, the aforesaid ground urged by the applicant''s Counsel has no force.

It was next urged that actually the Magistrate first summoned u/s 392/34, IPC, but later modified that order as to add certain other sections also. I may at the very out set observe that Annexure "4" refers to framing of the charge. True that the applicant was summoned u/s 392/34, IPC only, but any charges concerning any offences could be framed. In fact, the powers are so wide that even after framing of the charge before the pronouncement of judgment the court can modify and add other charges. So this second ground also would not prevail.

It was next urged that if Annexure "4" is taken as a charge, it has been framed behind the back of the applicant. This submission is completely repelled by the Annexure "4" filed by the applicant himself, disclosing that not only the charge was framed in the presence of the applicant, but it was also read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The next contention raised is that in any case the provisions of Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure, have not been complied with. In fact, the provision simply says that the accused persons will not be summoned, unless the process is furnished and copy of the complaint is furnished. It does not say that on failure to do so the complaint is to be necessarily dismissed. It is strange how the applicant has put in appearance, unless he has been served. The stand that he has not put in appearance before the trial court is repelled by the very Annexure "4". Even if for the arguments sake it is accepted that service has not been affected, this Court will not exercise inherent powers on technical considerations. The powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure are meant to serve the ends of justice and not defeat or delay it on considerations of any technical grounds ; the Magistrate can well ascertain from the records whether the copy of the complaint and list of witnesses have been furnished to the applicant or not and, if not furnished he can well supply it now ; the orders summoning the accused or framing charge against the accused will not be quashed on such technical'' considerations.

As regards the merit of the charge, in the case of Khacheru v. State of U.P. AIR 1982 SC 874 it has been held that such matters should be better left to the trial court rather than any interference by the superior court as such. The trial court is fully competent to record acquittal, if there is no evidence and the charges are not made out.

In the result, I do not find any force in this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure and it is dismissed.