Akula Srinivasa Rao And 2 Others, v. Siripurapu Bhanumathai And Another,

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON.No.2 8 2 6 of 2 0 1 1 ORDER:

The criminal petition is filed seeking for quash of the proceedings in CC.No.60 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District. The offences alleged are under Sections 417, 423, 427, 447, 448, 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, who takes notice for respondent No.2. None appears for first respondent in spite of notice.

3.

Counsel for the petitioners now stresses only upon propriety of the cryptic order, which was passed by the Court below, while taking cognizance of the case.

4.

The background facts are that, earlier based on a similar complaint, the case was referred as civil dispute and later a protest petition was filed and the impugned order dated 15.02.2011 was passed in the petition by taking cognizance of the case. A perusal of the order shows that it does not reflect application of mind by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court in P.S. MEHERHOMJI v . K.T. VI JAY KUMAR1 held as under:

"It is equally well settled that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto... If the allegations set out in the 1 (2015) 1 SCC 788

complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of power under Section 482." However, considering the plea of the counsel for the petitioners that remittance of the matter to the Court below to pass a reasoned order on the protest petition would suffice, the criminal petition is allowed in part. The matter is remitted to the Court below and the learned Magistrate is directed to apply his/ her mind and pass an order, though not a detailed order, at least reflecting the reasons for taking cognizance of the case. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

__________ T. RAJANI, J December 7, 2017 DSK