AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.R. Pal, J.—This matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Counsel of both the sides.
Heard Shri R. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri D.R. Mohapatra, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.
This is a petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the Petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 31. 7. 99 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur in G.R. Case No. 98 of 1999 issuing process against him. It appears from the impugned order that on receiving the final form the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 448,376,511,506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. It appears that though the Petitioner''s name does not find place in the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate decided to issue process against him since he was earlier arrested.
The course adopted by the learned Magistrate is against the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Kishori Singh and other v. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2000) 19 a.C.R. (SC) 647 wherein it has been held that process against persons not charge-sheeted though named in he F.I.R. cannot be issued by the Magistrate on taking cognizance of the offence on receiving the final form and such person or persons can only be added as accused in exercise of power u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure when some evidence are brought on record in course of trial.
In view of the above proposition of law, the prayer of the Petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 31.7.99, as far as it relates to issuance of process against the Petitioner is concerned, is quashed.
The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of.