Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition and sought for rejection of final report on the ground that petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012 should have arrayed as Accused Nos.12 to 15. The learned Magistrate accepted the protest petition and rejected the charge sheet filed by Investigating Officer.

7. The petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012 were arrayed as Accused Nos.12 to 15. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 307, 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to Accused Nos.1 to 15.

13. The learned Magistrate on bare perusal of protest petition should not have issued process to petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012. Therefore, process issued to petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012 (Accused Nos.12 to 15) on the basis of protest petition cannot be sustained.

14. The final report filed against petitioners in Crl.P. No.11422/2012 (Accused Nos.1 to 11) for several offences included an offence exclusively triable by Court of sessions. The learned Magistrate should have committed case to Court of sessions against these petitioners (A1 to A11) by following provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The issuance of process to petitioners in Crl.P. No.11422/2012 on the basis of protest petition cannot be sustained.

(iii) The issuance of process to Accused Nos.12 to 15 (petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012) on the basis of protest petition filed by 2 n d respondent is set aside;

(iv) In view of order made in Crl.P. No.11422/2012 directing the learned Magistrate to commit the case to the court of sessions against Accused Nos.1 to 11, issuance of process to Accused Nos.1 to 11 on the basis of protest memo has become infructuous;