The main legal point established is that for warrant triable offences, the provisions of Section 244 Cr.P.C. require the recording of pre-charge evidence before framing charges.

1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.6.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.) No. 1, Hanumangarh in Revision No. 11/2012 whereby the learned Revisional Court affirmed the order dated 19.3.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hanumangarh in Case No. 34/2009 whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 452, 323, 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the police had given a Final Report in this case. The Final Report was accepted by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter the complainant challenged the order of acceptance of Final Report and the learned Revisional Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration. At that stage the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was adopted. Learned Magistrate thereafter took cognizance against the petitioner and summoned him. Learned Counsel submits that in view of the fact that proceedings in the case were undertaken as a warrant case instituted on a complaint, it was mandatory to follow the procedure under Section 244 Cr.P.C. before the charge could be framed against the complainant. Learned Counsel submits that the learned Magistrate directed framing of charges without taking pre charge evidence and thus the order framing charge deserves to be quashed. He submits that merely because Public Prosecutor was instructed to plead the matter, that by itself could not change the nature of the case from a warrant case instituted upon a complaint. He, therefore, prays that the miscellaneous petition be accepted and the matter be remanded back to the Trial Court for recording pre-charge evidence before considering the question of charge.

3. Per contra learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He, however, does not dispute that the pre-charge evidence was not recorded by the learned Magistrate in this case.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that learned Magistrate has apparently committed a jurisdictional error in this case whilst framing charge against the accused without recording pre-charge evidence. Once the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. had been adopted by the learned Magistrate the case assumed the nature of a complaint. As the offence under Section 452, one of the offences involved in the matter is punishable with imprisonment of 7 years, it would fall within the category of a warrant triable offence. Therefore, the provisions of Section 244 Cr.P.C. would apply and before charge could be framed recording of pre-charge evidence was mandatory.

5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The order dated 19.3.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hanumangarh in Cr. Regular Case No. 34/2009 is hereby quashed. The learned Magistrate shall now record pre-charge evidence and thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law.Petition allowed

*******