The court emphasized the discretion of the Magistrate in procedural matters and the need to prevent the misuse of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narakkal in his official capacity filed two complaints before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parur against six persons each for an offence punishable under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code. They were petty cases Nos. 23 and 24 of 1983. The Magistrate took them to file as S.T. Nos. 125 and 126 of 1983. The present petitioners are invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C. for quashing the proceedings in the above two cases. Crl.M.C. 190 of 1983 relates to S.T. 125 of 1983 and Crl.M.C. 188/1983 relates to S.T. 126 of 1983.

2. In both the cases the allegations revealed from the complaint as summarised in the petitions are that on the evening of 14-1-1983 the respective accused persons played cards and made noise sitting on the public road at Pazhangad Bazar, Edayanakkad and thereby caused annoyance to the public. Accused 1 and 3 to 6 in S.T. 125 of 1983 are the petitioners in Crl.M.C. 190 of 1983 and accused 3 to 6 in S.T. 126 of 1983 are the petitioners in Cri.M.C. 188 of 1983.

3. I shall consider the various grounds on which the proceedings are sought to be quashed. The Magistrate issued summons under Section 204 of the Criminal P.C. instead of issuing summons under Section 206. This is said to be a serious irregularity vitiating the proceedings. The offence alleged is under Section 290 of the Penal Code. Maximum punishment is only a fine of Rs. 200/-. Both are private complaints coming under Section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal P.C. It is a petty offence which is non-cognizable. Procedure to be followed is that of a summons case. The Magistrate took cognizance of the cases and issued summons under Section 204(1)(a) of the Criminal P.C. For issuing summons in cases of petty offences there is a procedure under Section 206 of the Criminal P.C. to issue special summons. These are cases which could be summarily tried under Section 260 of the Criminal P.C. Even under Section 260, the First Class Magistrate is having the discretion to decide whether the case has to be tried summarily or not. He need adopt the summary procedure only if he thinks fit to do so in the circumstances of the case. Under Section 206 of the Criminal P.C. also the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence is having the discretion to decide whether the case has to be tried summarily or not. If only he decides to try the case summarily, he need issue special summons under Section 206 giving the option to the accused in the summons to plead guilty without appearing before the court. Only in case such a summons is issued, the punishment need be specified in the summons in order to afford the accused an opportunity, if he desires to plead guilty, to do so and pay off fine without taking the trouble of appearing before court. In case the Magistrate decides to try the case summarily alone, he need record reasons in writing, if special summons, as contemplated by Section 206, is not issued. It is true that the provisions for issuing special summons under Section 206 of the Criminal P.C. was enacted with a view to protect the persons guilty of minor infractions from the harassment of appearing before courts. There may be petty offences in which summary trial may not be desirable. When the Magistrate is having the discretion, exercise of that discretion, unless shown to be illegal or having resulted in prejudice, cannot be said to have vitiated the proceedings. These are cases in which the accused-petitioners did not plead guilty. In fact they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, at any rate, there cannot be any question of prejudice in not issuing special summons. It goes without saying that there is no illegality also. Therefore, this ground is not available for invoking the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

4. The next attack was that when the complainant did not appear on the first day posted for hearing, the Magistrate has not chosen to acquit the accu