Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 234 (AP)

DHANARAM v. S. K. ABDUL BASHEER

2000-03-28

VAMAN RAO

body2000
VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. PC seeks directions from this Court to the II Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Nellore to proceed with the complaint filed by the petitioners in accordance with the relevant provisions of criminal Procedure Code. ( 2 ) IT is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein have filed a complaint on 11-1-1999 before the learned Magistrate making allegations of offences under Sections 167, 220, 330, 343, 347 and 364 IPC against the accused therein. ( 3 ) IT appears from the docket endorsement that the learned Magistrate has not recorded the sworn statements of the complainants and directed the matter to be called on 4-2-1999. Thereafter again directed it to be called on 8-2-1999, 19-2-1999, thereafter again on 19-3-1999 without recording the sworn statements of the complainants. Thereafter the case was called again on 13-4-1999. On this day also the learned Magistrate has not recorded the sworn statements of the complainants. Thus the case underwent several adjournments without recording the sworn statements of the complainants till 2-8-1999. On this day also the sworn statements of any of the complainants was not recorded. The matter was adjourned to 21-9-1999. It was on 21-9-1999 that the learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statements of two of the complainants. The learned Counsel for the petitioners points out that this was done by the learned Magistrate only after the petitioners had filed this petition in this Court on 1-9-1999. While ordering notice in this petition records from the trial court have been also called for. Thus, the grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that from 11-1-1999 to 21-9-1999 the sworn statements of the complainants were not recorded by the learned Magistrate. ( 4 ) IT would appear to be a case of abnegation of duties on the part of the learned Magistrate. When a complaint has been filed, it was open to the Magistrate either to take cognizance of the case and examine the complainant on oath under section 200 Cr. PC; or, it was equally open to him to postpone the issue of process under Section 202 Cr. When a complaint has been filed, it was open to the Magistrate either to take cognizance of the case and examine the complainant on oath under section 200 Cr. PC; or, it was equally open to him to postpone the issue of process under Section 202 Cr. PC and enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such person as he thought fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The learned Magistrate for about nine months has chosen to sit over the complaint without following any procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal procedure. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is perfectly justified that the complaint filed by the complainant was not dealt with in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, the learned Magistrate is directed tq proceed with the complaint in accordance with the provisions under section 200 Cr. PC and other applicable provisions. With this direction, this petition is disposed of. ( 5 ) THE complainants are directed to appear before the Magistrate on 18-4-2000. The Registry is directed to send back the lower Court record and ensure that the records called for from the trial Court reach back before the date mentioned above. ( 6 ) IT is seen that the relief sought in the Writ Petition No. 5185 of 1999 is nothing to do with the relief sought in this criminal petition. The writ petition shall be heard separately. Post the writ petition on 3-4-2000.