Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 502 (JK)

Manohar Lal v. State

2013-09-03

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2013
1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing order dated 12.03.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Billawar, or, in the alternative, judgment and order dated 06.03.2012 passed by this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 87/2005, on the grounds taken in the petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Magistrate, who had issued the show cause notice while making the judgment and order dated 12.03.2005 in FIR No. 46/2000, Police Station Billawar, has the power to pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 250 Cr.P.C. Thus, the proceedings conducted and the order passed by this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 87/2005 are not in accordance with the judgment made by the Supreme Court in case Nandkumar Krishnarao Navgire v. Jagannath Laxman Kushalkar, 1999 Cr.L.J. 5022. 3. Mr. Salathia argued that the same Magistrate, who had issued the show cause notice in terms of Section 250 Cr.P.C., has the power to examine and make the order; his successor or any other Magistrate has no such jurisdiction. 4. It is argued by Mr. Salathia that the order made by this Court was not in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court. Even the trial court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the show cause notice because the same was made by his predecessor. He further argued that in view of the order made by this Court in the criminal revision, the Magistrate in position cannot conduct the proceedings. 5. I have gone through the judgment and the order made by this Court. The Apex Court in the case (supra) has held that the successor to the said Magistrate, who had issued the show cause notice, was lacking jurisdiction to pass orders. It is the same Magistrate, who issues the show cause notice, has the jurisdiction to determine the proceedings. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 5 of the judgment herein. "5. The literal interpretation, as put forth, though attractive, violates, in our view, the purpose behind Section 250 which has a narrow scope. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrate, as is evident, is equivalent to his jurisdiction to impose fine on an accused. The Magistrate of the First Class can impose fine to the extent of Rs. "5. The literal interpretation, as put forth, though attractive, violates, in our view, the purpose behind Section 250 which has a narrow scope. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrate, as is evident, is equivalent to his jurisdiction to impose fine on an accused. The Magistrate of the First Class can impose fine to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- only and a Magistrate of leaser denomination can impose lesser fines as enjoined under the law. Now, here was a case of a Chief Judicial Magistrate who had acquitted the appellant. His jurisdiction to impose fine was only upto to Rs. 2,000/-. Thus, the scope of enquiry under Section 250, Cr.P.C. is only an effort to award to the accused a bare sum of Rs. 2,000/-, if at all, after hearing the complainant. The enquiry in the nature being so small and narrow, the Legislature perhaps though that it should be in the nature of an addenda to the main enquiry or trial. Therefore, the view has emerged in all the High Courts in the country that the same Magistrate alone can initiate action and pass the final orders. To mention a few precedents in that regard, attention be invited to AIR 1929 Cal 762 : (1930 (31) Cri LJ 828), Rajaram Majhi v. Panchanan Ghosh; AIR 1939 Sind 321 : (1940 (41) Cri LJ 53), Emperor v. Muhammad Alan and AIR 1953 Pun 213, Ram Nath v. Bashir-ud-Din and many other which exist, as have been noticed in the last mentioned Punjab case. It would thus be worthwhile to preserve the interpretation of the provision which would not disturb the unanimous understanding of the High Court's on the subject. We hold accordingly." 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the proceedings arising out of the show cause notice issued in terms of Section 250 Cr.P.C are illegal and abuse of process of law. 7. This matter was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of making order dated 06.03.2012. Thus, the said order requires to be recalled while invoking the jurisdiction in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. read with the judgment made by the Full Bench of this Court in case Prem Singh v. State & Anr., reported in 2010 (8) JKJ [HC] 486 : 1982 KLJ 55. 8. Thus, the said order requires to be recalled while invoking the jurisdiction in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. read with the judgment made by the Full Bench of this Court in case Prem Singh v. State & Anr., reported in 2010 (8) JKJ [HC] 486 : 1982 KLJ 55. 8. Accordingly, I, while exercising the inherent power, deem it proper to allow the petition, recall order dated 06.03.2012 and dismiss the criminal revision petition and close the proceedings, i.e., issuance of show cause notice. It is so ordered. 9. Disposed of along with connected Cr.M.P.