Back
2019 Supreme(AP) 317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
John Raju Junjunuri - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - Respondents
Crl. RC No. 765 of 2019
Decided On : 12-11-2019
For the Appellant : S. Pranathi.
For the Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor and S. Shyam Sundar Rao.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 245(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 465 /471/120-B - Police alleging that his Service Register was tampered with by the accused - Petition is premature is erroneous and she would contend that in a private warrant-case - Empowered to discharge the accused at any stage of the proceedings - They are not the offences triable as per procedure prescribed for trial of warrant-cases so as to frame any charge or to entertain any petition to discharge as these offences are triable as per procedure prescribed for trial of summons-cases and as such the question of framing charge or to consider a petition for discharge does not arise - Held, Case involving a summons-case is covered of the Code which does not contemplate a stage of discharge, which provides for a discharge in a warrant-case - Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that once the plea of the accused is recorded, the procedure contemplated has to be followed which is to take the trial to its logical conclusion - In the light of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and the relevant provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, as discussed supra, if the case on hand is considered, since the offences in the case are triable as per summons procedure to discharge the petitioner is misconceived and not maintainable - However, it is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and this petition is being disposed of only on the ground of maintainability of the petition filed to discharge the accused in a summons-case - Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 27.4.2019 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 4410 of 2018 in CC No. 350 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, Krishna District, whereby the petition filed under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioner, who is accused No. 3 in the above case, was dismissed.
2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as follows:
(a) The de facto complainant by name V. Venkateswara Sastry initially lodged a report with the police alleging that his Service Register was tampered with by the accused Nos. 1 to 6. The said report was referred by the police on the ground that the dispute is of civil in nature. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, did not accept the said final report referring the case as of civil in nature and by his order dated 17.6.2016, he has taken cognizance of the case for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 6 and he has registered the said complaint as CC No. 350 of 2016 and issued summons to accused Nos. 1 to 6.
(b) Thereafter, the petitioner herein, who is accused No. 3, filed a petition under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. to discharge him in the said case. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 27.4.2019 dismissed the said petition on the ground that it was filed at a premature stage.
(c) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner who is accused No. 3 preferred the present revision to this Court.
3. Heard Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Syamsunder Rao, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand, Crl. M.P. No. 485/2009, dated 18.3.2019, would contend that the finding of the learned Magistrate that the petition is premature is erroneous and she would contend that in a private warrant-case, the Magistrate is empowered to discharge the accused at any stage of the proceedings under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, she prayed to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent would contend that since the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case under Sections 465 and 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC, they are not the offences triable as per procedure prescribed for trial of warrant-cases so as to frame any charge or to entertain any petition to discharge as these offences are triable as per procedure prescribed for trial of summons-cases and as such the question of framing charge or to consider a petition for discharge does not arise. So, he would contend that the very petition filed by the petitioner under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C., to discharge him in the case is itself not maintainable and thereby prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
6. Perused the record.
7. As can be seen from the material placed on record, after the police referred the case as of civil nature, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 17.6.2016 did not accept the said final report and he has taken cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 465 and 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC against all the accused i.e., accused Nos. 1 to 6 and registered the said case as CC No. 350 of 2016 and issued summons to the accused.
8. Now it is to be seen whether the case involving offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC is a warrant-case or summons-case and whether framing of charge is required or not.
9. Warrant-case is defined under Section 2(x) of Cr.P.C. and it reads as under:
"Warrant-case" means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years."
10. Section 2(w) of Cr.P.C., defines a summons-case and it reads as under:
"Summons-case" means a case relating to an
