Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The impugned orders are challenged on the following grounds:-

i) The Magistrate having taken cognizance issued the process on a complaint filed by the Petitioner. It was obligatory on the part of the learned A.C.M.M. to have first given an opportunity to the Petitioner to adduce its evidence as provided under Section 244 of the Code and only then to determine whether the Respondent is to be charged with the offence or he was liable to be discharged. Reliance is placed on Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 338 and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2004) 13 SCC 324.

ii) The learned A.C.M.M. acted in hot haste in holding that the charge against the Respondent was groundless. The Petitioner relied on some documents and the Criminal Complaints No. 28/1 and 63/1 filed against the Respondent apart from the evidence on record.

The learned A.C.M.M. ought not to have discharged Respondent No.2.

3. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that a Magistrate or for that matter an ASJ does not enjoy any inherent powers as those conferred on a High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Admittedly, the Magistrate and the „ASJ‟ do not have any power of review. In Adalat Prasad, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that against an order of summoning (in a summons case) the only remedy available, to an aggrieved accused, is the extraordinary remedy available under Section 482 of the Code and not by an Application to recall the summons or to seek discharge. The law laid down in Adalat Prasad was approved by a three Judge Bench decision in Subramanium Sethuraman, and the contention raised that Adalat Prasad required reconsideration, was rejected. Para 14 of the report of the Supreme Court in Subramanium Sethuraman is extracted hereunder:-