1999 (3) TMI 674 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision against order dated 9-2-99 passed by the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 305 of 1999.
2. Application of mind by the Magistrate before passing the order.
3. Maintainability of the revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
4. Interpretation of Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C. regarding the recording of reasons for dismissal of complaint and issue of process.

Analysis:
1. The revision was filed against the order summoning the applicant based on a charge sheet for offences under Sections 420, 467, and 468 IPC. The revisionist argued that the order lacked the Magistrate's prima facie satisfaction of the commission of an offence before issuing process.

2. The issue of maintainability of the revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was raised. The revisionist cited a Division Bench case to support that the order of summoning is not interlocutory, making the revision maintainable. The Court agreed with this interpretation, allowing the revision to proceed.

3. Regarding the merits, the applicant's Counsel referenced Section 204 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the Magistrate's power to issue process if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The argument was that the order did not reflect the Magistrate's application of mind to determine the existence of sufficient grounds.

4. The judgment delved into the procedures for taking cognizance under Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. It highlighted the three stages of a case: issue of process under Section 204, consideration under Section 239 before framing charges, and final judgment after recording all evidence. The Court clarified that detailed scrutiny of evidence is not required at all three stages, with different levels of consideration and reasoning expected.

5. The Court noted the distinction between Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that while Section 203 mandates recording reasons for complaint dismissal, no such requirement exists under Section 204 for issuing process. Thus, the order for process issuance without recorded reasons was deemed legal, leading to the dismissal of the revision.