9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Impugning order of process under sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C. issued by J.M.F.C. Nasik based on a complaint filed by respondent No. 1. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order dated 25-6-1990, passed by the J.M.F.C. Nasik, which issued process against him under sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C. The complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner on 16-8-1989, leading to the initiation of Criminal Case No. 258 of 1989. The J.M.F.C. ordered an investigation by the concerned P.S.I. under section 202 Cr.P.C. The police report, received on 30-1-1990, was in favor of the petitioner. Subsequently, on 13-2-1990, the J.M.F.C. directed the complainant to provide evidence before issuing process. Eventually, on 25-6-1990, the J.M.F.C. issued process against the petitioner, prompting the petitioner to challenge this order through the present petition. The petitioner contended that once a police report was called for under section 202 Cr.P.C., it was not legally permissible for the J.M.F.C. to examine the complainant again under section 202 Cr.P.C. since the complainant had already been examined under section 200 Cr.P.C. on the date of filing the complaint. The petitioner argued that the J.M.F.C. called for a police report under section 202 Cr.P.C. because he was not initially satisfied with issuing process after recording the complainant's statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. Upon considering the submissions, the court found merit in the petitioner's argument. Section 200 Cr.P.C. mandates recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses before summoning the accused or deferring the issuance of process for further inquiry. Section 202(b) of Cr.P.C. specifies that no direction for an investigation can be made unless the complainant and witnesses have been examined under section 200 Cr.P.C. In this case, the complainant was examined under section 200 Cr.P.C. before the police investigation and then again under section 202 Cr.P.C. after the police report. The court emphasized that the statement of the complainant must be recorded before a police investigation, not after. Therefore, the J.M.F.C. erred in re-examining the complainant under section 202 Cr.P.C. after the police report was received, rendering the summoning order unsustainable in law. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the order dated 25-6-1990 passed by the J.M.F.C. Nasik, summoning the petitioner for offenses under sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C. The rule was made absolute, and the petition was allowed.
|
