The delay in filing a petition should be justified, and the Magistrate must examine the materials on record before framing charges for offenses.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the records.

2. An application I.A.No.2/2019 is filed for vacating stay granted by this Court. As the matter is heard on merits, I.A.No.2/2019 does not survive for consideration.

3. On perusal of the materials available on record and as per the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, it reveals that a person by name Lingappa son of Basappa-respondent No.2 herein lodged a private complaint in P.C.R.No.17/2012. The learned Magistrate after perusal of the complaint averments felt that the matter requires to be investigated by the jurisdictional police. Hence, referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and report.

4. After thorough investigation, the police have submitted the charge sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 14.10.2014 and ordered to issue summons to accused Nos.1 to 9 and thereafter, the accused Nos.1 & 3 to 9 appeared before the Court and enlarged themselves on bail. For the present, the matter is posted before the learned Magistrate to secure the presence of accused No.2 and to proceed to hear with regard to framing of charges.

5. The present petition is filed in the year 2019 with reference to the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate in the year 2014. There is an inordinate and unreasonable delay which is not explained by the petitioner and has kept quiet for such a long time.

6. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad in law as the learned Magistrate has not mentioned for which offence the cognizance is taken and there is no application of mind by the learned Magistrate in order to ascertain whether the offences under Sections 193 and 420 of IPC is attracted or not. Hence, the impugned order and all further proceedings requires to be quashed.

7. But on careful perusal of the entire materials on record, when the complaint was filed, the learned Magistrate after perusal of the complaint referred the same for investigation to the police that shows that the learned Magistrate at the time of referring the matter itself has perused the contents of the complaint and felt that the materials are available for the purpose of investigation. Hence, the learned Magistrate referred the same for investigation.

8. Apart from the above, the order sheet of the trial Court discloses that the office has put up note that the police have filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 193 and 420 of IPC along with original complaint, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, FSL report, wound certificate, witness statements and certain documents. Thereafter, the same were placed for consideration before the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders. After looking to the note put up by the office, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons. Therefore, when it is specifically stated in the office note that the offences said to have committed by the accused persons, the learned Magistrate after perusal of the same, mentioned that the cognizance has been taken which goes without saying that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of those offences which are mentioned in the charge sheet. Therefore, in my opinion, it does not amount to illegality in order to quash the entire proceedings on that particular ground.

9. Now coming to the second point, whether the offence under Section 420 of IPC is attracted or not. As pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner whether it falls under the provision of IPC or not, again that has to be tested by the learned Magistrate at the time of hearing the matter for framing the charges or recording plea of the accused. After going through the entire materials on record and after hearing the parties, if the learned Magistrate