Smt. Boramma vs Palaiah

Subhash B. Adi

Petitioner has called in question the proceedings in C.C.No. 38/2008 and also the order dated 19.7.2008. Respondent has filed a private complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s 323, 506(2), 382, 406, 418, 420 and 424 of IPC. His case is that he is an agrculturist. The accused had proposed to sell the tractor. The. negotiation talks were held on 5.5.2008. The sale price was fixed at Rs. 2,40,000/-. On 15.5.2008, accused had obtained a ''No Due Certificate'' from the Bank. On perusal and verification of the documents, complainant paid Rs. 2,40,000/- on the said day. After receiving the sale amount, one Boramma, RC owner had subscribed the receipt of sale, delivery note, Insurance transfer form and an agreement of sale on Rs. .100/- stamp paper. Thereafter, Form Nos. 29 and 30, tax card and RC book were handed over to the complainant. While complainant was moving on the tractor, the accused blocked his way and forcibly took the tractor. They also threatened the complainant. On these allegations, the complaint is filed.

The learned Magistrate, by order dated 4.7.2008 registered the complaint, took the cognizance and after taking cognizance and recording the sworn statement has passed the order for issue of notice only on an application filed by the complainant for production of the tractor, and by order dated 1.9.7.2003, the leamed Magistrate has directed accused No.1 to produce the tractor and trailer in question, as against the said order, this petition is filed. If the learned Magistrate is satisfied with the averment in the complaint and finds that there is prima facie case against the accused and had taken cognizance after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and registering the complaint, he was required to issue summons to the accused so that the accused could appear before the learned Magistrate and thereafter, it should have considered the application for production of tractor. However, before even summons is issued, the learned Magistrate has issues'' notice on IA to the accused, and thereafter, has passed the orders on IA. In my opinion, procedure followed by the learned Magistrate was improper.

Accordingly, petition is partly allowed. Order dated 19.7.2008 is hereby set aside. The accused is directed to appear before The learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate may thereafter consider the application filed by the complainant, if any, and pass appropriate orders.

Parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 33.6.2012.