JUDGMENT 1. - This application has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. against the notice issued by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kekri on 6-5-89 wherein he has stated that an application had been filed against the petitioner to the effect that he had not handed over the X-ray plates No. 22752-53 dated 7-10-86 to police and, therefore, he should appear and show cause as to why cognizance may not be taken against him under Sec. 176 IPC. 2. Ex-facie, the notice issued by the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction. There is no provision, express or implied, to issue a show cause notice like the one given by the Magistrate on a complaint which is filed before him. He has to deal with it under the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). It is obligatory upon the Magistrate to have gone through the provisions of Sec. 176 IPC also before issuing a notice as to whether the case falls within the purview of the said Section or not. 3. The Complaint filed by the SHO, Police Station, Sarwas is to the effect that Devi, injured, was X-rayed at Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital and the X-ray was taken by Ashwini Kumar Bhargava. Report of this X-ray had been sent to the police vide letter dated 7-10 86, but he wanted to obtain the X-ray plates on which Dr. Bhargava informed the SHO that he can obtain it from the Medical Jurist as it is sent to him. Medical Jurist Shri M.R. Goyal, when was asked to hand over the plates, replied that then same shall be placed in the Court when it is require to be tendered in evidence and he has forwarded already the report. According to the SHO who filed the complaint, this section of the Doctor of not handing over the plates, amounts to an offence punishable under Sec. 176 IPC. Along with the complaint he has filed the letter which he has written to the Medico Legal Jurist wherein he has written that X-ray plates be sent per bearers so that the challan may be filed in the court. Along with the complaint he has filed the letter which he has written to the Medico Legal Jurist wherein he has written that X-ray plates be sent per bearers so that the challan may be filed in the court. On this application there is an endorsement by some Doctor regarding which no investigation appears to have been made by the Investigating Officer who has written that "Referred to the Medico Legal Jurist, Associated Group of Hospitals, Ajmer since X-ray plates remained with the Department of Radiology and as per practice the Radiologist takes the X ray films to the court of law whenever he goes for evidence. Submitted for further instructions into the matter". Thereafter, the matter has been placed before the head of the Radiology Department, who has mentioned these MLC films are taken by the concerned Radiologist in the court at the time of evidence as these are also required for treatment purposes by the concerned treating Doctor. This instruction has been given by the professor and Head of the Department. Information to this effect was sent to the SHO without further investigating into the matter and obtaining instructions from higher authorities straight away filed the aforesaid complaint and the learned Magistrate mechanically issued a notice to show cause to Dr. M.R. Goyal, Associate, Professor in Radiology, who has sent reply to the notice by post which forms the part of the record. 4. I could have sent back the case to the learned Magistrate for disposal on the reply to the notice but it would be futile in view of the fact that very issuance of the notice is without jurisdiction. I have already said above that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction, express or implied, to issue notice on a complaint except to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-XV in the Code. Hence, the matter could be sent to him for proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-XV of the Code. However, looking to the facts of the case. I am of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the entire case is disposed of here. 5. The complainant has not chosen to appear despite notice to him. On a careful scrutiny of the record, I found that the complaint has been filed by the Head Constable of the Police Station who has put seal of the SHO, Police Station Sarwada. 5. The complainant has not chosen to appear despite notice to him. On a careful scrutiny of the record, I found that the complaint has been filed by the Head Constable of the Police Station who has put seal of the SHO, Police Station Sarwada. Learned Magistrate before entertaining such a complaint ought to have verified from the record the bonafides of the record of the complaint. In light of the endorsements, made on the request by the Professors and Head of the Department of the College, it has been clearly established what is relevant for the purpose of filing the charge-sheet is the report of the Radiologist and not the X-ray plate itself. The plate is placed before the Court and tendered in evidence when the witness is examined and it is produced from his custody. That is the Practice prevalent for several years and that is the law also. It is all the more essential that as stated by the Doctor, the patient may require a prolonged treatment and the X-ray films may also be required for the purpose of the treatment as well, hence hospital record cannot be given unless called for by the court for tendering into the evidence. The relevancy of production only comes when the report is accepted in as some (illegible) evidence. Hence, when the Professor and the Head of the Department had already written a note on the request it was obligatory for the Police Officer to have verified it from either the Government or any other agency as to whether Dr. Goyal, whose name nowhere appears on the document, could be prosecuted for his not sending the X-ray film to the head Constable investigating into the case though it may be mentioned here that there is nothing on record to suggest that the Head Constable, who filed the complaint personally met Dr. Goyal in this respect. 6. It may be mentioned that Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine has published a book viz., 'Practical Medico-Legal Manual' which is a guide to the medical practitioners. Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine is a national body of Forensic Medico Experts and it is this body which for the guidance of the Medico Legal Jurist have issued the aforesaid manual. 6. It may be mentioned that Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine has published a book viz., 'Practical Medico-Legal Manual' which is a guide to the medical practitioners. Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine is a national body of Forensic Medico Experts and it is this body which for the guidance of the Medico Legal Jurist have issued the aforesaid manual. It is clearly mentioned in Chapter-IV the Medicolegal Duties (General) dealing with the heading 'Maintenance of Records and Custody of Medico Legal Records', as under:- "All forms filled for X-Ray examination in medicolegal cases must bear M.L.C. word on the top so that necessary precautions could be taken by Radiology department in these cases. The X-Ray finding together with the number of X-Ray plates be recorded on the medico-legal report in order to facilitate further treatment and reference. The X-Ray report, and not the X-Ray films of these cases, should be handed over to Police. (Emphasis added).....................The medicolegal records should be produced in the court while appearing as a witness. A proper receipt should be obtained if the courts want the X-Ray film or other document for their record." 7. The aforesaid reading of the provisions in the manual clearly go to indicate that X-Ray films are required to be produced from the custody of the Medicolegal jurist by the court and in normal course not to be handed over to police. What is to be handed over is the report of the Medicolegal jurist or the report of the Radiologist along with the same but not the plates. The complaint is wholly mis-conceived and to entertain such complaint is an abuse of the process of the Court much less for the purpose of issuing the show cause notice of which the Magistrate has no jurisdiction. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions I allow this petition and quash the proceedings. The complaint dated 17-11-86 is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******