Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. At the outset, I must mention that the petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Crl. M.P. No. 883 of 1995, under section 227 read with section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is misconceived. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relates to the powers of the sessions court to frame charges. Section 239 relates to the powers of the Magistrate to discharge the accused in a warrant case. But, this case having been filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, relates to summons procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. As such, the petition filed by the petitioner before the lower court under the relevant section was not competent and the same was not maintainable. However, as per the decision in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, , the Supreme Court held that even in summons cases, the petition could be maintained under section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to drop the proceedings. So, I have no hesitation to hold that though the petition was filed by quoting wrong provisions, viz., section 227 read with section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it could be construed as having been filed under section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to drop the proceedings and discharge the accused.