G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE Munsif Magistrate, Ponnur allowed Crl. M. P. No. 234/87 and issued summons to the accused for the production of the Fiat Car bearing No. ATG 666 before the court on or before 7-9-1987. The accused contended that the court has no power to issue the search warrant for production of the car. The Munsif Magistrate rejected the contention of the accused and allowed the petition. Against that, the present petition has been filed under S. 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the petition before the Magistrate are as follows : A private complaint has been filed under S. 200, Cr. P. C. against the accused (petitioner herein) for offences punishable under sections 420 and 406, IPC on 16-4-1987. The complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, for investigation and report. The S. I. of Police, Ponnur registered the case in Crime No. 131/87 under sections 420 and 406 IPC on 13-8-1987 at 10-30 a. m. The FIR reached the Magistrate on 13-8-1987 at 5-45 p. m. After the receipt of the FIR, the same was informed to the complainant and the private complaint was closed. As summons have already been issued for the production of the car, the accused filed Crl. M. P. No. 635/87 under S. 91, Cr. P. C. and also Crl. M. P. No. 636/87 under sections 91 and 93, Cr. P. C. In Crl. M. P. No. 635/87 the accused requested the court to drop the further proceedings in the matter. In Crl. M. P. No. 636/87 the accused requested the Court to vacate the ex parte orders passed in Crl. M. P. No. 234/87 directing the production of the car pending disposal of the case. All the three petitions were disposed of by the Magistrate holding that the court has got power under S. 91, Cr. P. C. to issue summons to the accused for the production of the car.

( 3 ) THE case that is set up by the complainant is that he is having a driving licence and he purchased the car ATG 666 to ply it as a taxi. The accused entered into an agreement with him and agreed to pay Rs. 2,000. 00 per month for use of the car. The case of the accused is that due to some difficulty he could not take the vehicle in his name as the complainant is his relation and as he was also having a licence, the vehicle was taken in his name and he paid the instalments and the agreement set up by him is false and previously the matter was reported to the Police and the same has been closed on the advice of the APP Gr. II as the issue of a civil nature.

( 4 ) SRI Padmanabha Reddy contended that the direction given by the Magistrate for the issuance of summons to the petitioner (accused) for the production of the vehicle before Court on 7-9-1987 is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the Magistrate did not take the complaint on file, but he referred the same to Police for investigation and report under S. 156 (3), Cr. P. C. and since the court has not taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint, the jurisdiction to pass an order under S. 91, Cr. P. C. will arise only if the police filed a chargesheet. It is also contended that the investigating agency did not think it necessary or desirable to seize the vehicle and they did not file any application for issue of summons.

( 5 ) WHETHER the complaint as alleged is of a civil nature or not is not necessary for us to decide in this petition. The point involved in this case is when once the Magistrate has referred the private complaint under S. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. has he got any power to issue summons under S. 91, Cr. P. C. to the accused for the production of the vehicle. In effect, the substance of the contention that has been raised is when there is no case pending before the Magistrate and when the Magistrate is aware of the fact that the matter has been under investigation by the Police in Crime No. 131/87, the court has no power under S. 91, Cr. P. C. to issue summons to the accused for the production of the vehicle.

( 6 ) CHAPTER VII

Click Here to Read the rest of this document