9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the revision petition before the High Court. 2. Examination of the impugned order passed by the CJM on the application u/s 239, Cr.P.C. Summary: 1. Maintainability of the Revision Petition: The respondent-State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition before the High Court, arguing that the order impugned, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) relating to prosecution for offences u/s 498-A and 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C, is amenable to revision u/s 397, Cr.P.C, before the Court of Session/District Judge. The petitioners contended that the High Court and Sessions Court enjoy concurrent jurisdiction u/s 397, Cr.P.C, and therefore, they have the option to choose either Court. The High Court noted that the power u/s 397, Cr.P.C cannot be read in isolation but with the provision of Section 401, Cr.P.C, which confers enlarged or amplified power on the High Court compared to the Sessions Court. The Court concluded that there is no bar in Section 397, Cr.P.C prohibiting invoking the power of the High Court without approaching the Sessions Court. However, propriety demands that a litigant must avail the benefit of such revision in the Court lower in hierarchy. The objection of the State that revision u/s 397, Cr.P.C is not maintainable was overruled. 2. Examination of the Impugned Order:The impugned order was passed on an application u/s 239, Cr.P.C. The factual matrix involved allegations of dowry demand and physical torture by the accused, leading to charges u/s 498-A, 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance and issued process, which the petitioners sought to discharge. The High Court noted that the magistrate's order was based on written arguments without examining the accused as required u/s 239, Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the magistrate must examine the records and the accused to ascertain whether a case is made out for framing charge. The impugned order was found to be irrational and against the mandate of Section 239, Cr.P.C, and was set aside. The Court concluded that the allegations against the petitioners did not make out any case for trial, and they were entitled to discharge. The revision petition succeeded in entirety, and the petitioners were discharged. The observations made during the course of this order shall not prejudice the prosecution or accused during the trial of other accused.
|
