The main legal point established in the judgment is that procedural technicalities cannot impede the legal process, and the Magistrate has the power to issue warrants of arrest at the first instance in a warrant case as provided under Section 204(1)(b).

H. R. MALHOTRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to quash the impugned order dated 15th September,2002 and 14th october,2005.

( 2 ) FORMER order relates to taking cognizance against the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 406,420, 120 IPC and sending it for trial as provided under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and later orders relate to issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner ans also the learned prosecutor and the complainant/respondent in person. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that cognizance as taken by the Metropolitan magistrate was bad in law as the complaint was not filed before the appropriate forum. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the complaint was required to be filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who in turn was to assign the same to the Magistrate concerned. In the instant case the complaint was filed in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate and as such according to learned counsel for the petitioner the cognizance as taken by the Metropolitan magistrate is vitiated under law and liable to be quashed. What else is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Metropolitan Magistrate erroneously issued warrants of arrest in the first instance it being contrary to the provisions of Section 204 (1) (a ).

( 3 ) HE urged that scheme of the Act provides that at the first instance summons should be issued against the accused and if his presence is not secured and if the accused deliberately evade service of summons then in that event warrants may be issued. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submit that there was no bar from issuing warrants of arrest at the first instance as according to him under the provisions of Section 204 (1) (b) the Magistrate is authorised to issue warrants straightaway instead of summons in warrant case.

( 4 ) BOTH the counsel also argued on the merits of the case. This Court at this juncture shall not look into the merits of the case, the Metropolitan magistrate being seized of the matter. During the course of the arguments it is also urged before me that one of the petitioners namely Vijay Kakkar had left India despite restraint order passed by this Court dated 3rd February,2006 in the Crl. Misc. NO. 133-35/2006 to the effect that the petitioner Vijay Kakkar will not leave the country but he left the country on 5th February,2006 and for that reason alone, the respondent urged that the petitioner is not entitled to be heard as they have not approached this Court with clean hands.

( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in person and also having given audience to the learned prosecutor, there is no denial of the fact that the present case was a warrant case and this being so, the Magistrate has ample powers to issue warrants of arrest as provided under section 204 (1) (b) and thus there is no fallacy in the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issuing warrants of arrest at the first in stance. Though provisions of Section 204 (2) states that no summons or warrants shall be issued against the accused unless list of witnesses have been filed. I may state it is not a case where complaint under Section 204 Cr PC was filed but an application was made before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 153 for carrying on investigation by the police. The Magistrate while acting on the application, ordered investigation. Therefore provisions of Section 204 (2) had no application to the present case.

( 6 ) SINCE it was a warrant case, the Magistrate had power to issue warrants against the petitioner. As regards the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner the complaint ought to have been filed before Chief Metropolitan magistrate I am not impressed by such arguments as these are procedural technicalities which cann

Click Here to Read the rest of this document