In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners/A1 and A3
challenges the order dated 24.12.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.5786 of 2014 in
C.C.No.36 of 2012 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Sattenapalli dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners/A1
and A3 under Section 258 Cr.P.C. for stopping the proceedings against him
in C.C.No.36 of 2012.
offences under Sections 323, 427, 452, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC before the
learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. It is a private
summons case. The matter is in the mid way of defence evidence. At this
stage, the petitioners/A1 and A3 filed a petition under Section 258 Cr.P.C.
to stop the proceedings against them on the grounds firstly, that the
allegations of complainant that incident took place on 18.05.2011 at 11 AM
at Dharanikota is an utter false because at the relevant time the complainant
herein appeared before the SHO, Bommuru PS, Rajahmundry in due
compliance of the bail order conditions imposed in Crl.M.P.No.615 of 2011
dated 03.05.2011 passed by Judge, Family Court, Rajahmundry and
secondly, that during evidence complainant changed the time of offence and
stated as if offence took place at 11.30 P.M. and so there was no consistency
in her evidence on material facts.
b) Petition was opposed by the respondent/defacto complainant.
c) Learned Magistrate after due enquiry dismissed the petition on the
grounds that benefit under Section 258 Cr.P.C. can be extended only to the
cases instituted on police reports but not to the private complaints and that
the inconsistency relating to time of the offence and alleged suppression of
other material facts by the complainant and their effect on the veracity of
evidence of defacto complainant can be decided only after completion of
trial.
Hence the instant petition.
Whether there are merits in this petition to allow?
5) Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of record, I find no merits in
the petition. This is a case instituted on private complaint and it is a
summons case. So, the procedure contemplated under Sections 251 to 259 is
applicable to the case on hand. Section 258 deals with powers of Magistrate
to stop proceedings in certain cases, which reads thus:
258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases: In any summons- case instituted
otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the
previous
sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may,
for reasons
to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any
judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of
the
principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in
any
other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of
discharge.
Under section 258 of the code, in appropriate cases, the Magistrate can stop
the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing judgment. If stoppage of
proceedings is effected after recording the evidence of principal witnesses,
Magistrate has to pronounce the judgment of acquittal and in any other case,
the Magistrate can release the accused and such release has an effect of
discharging the accused. The underlying principle in empowering the
Magistrate to stop the proceedings without pronouncing the judgment or
pronouncing judgment of acquittal or releasing the accused is to prevent
miscarriage of justice i.e. upon finding that there is no material to proceed
further and such proceeding amounts to abuse of process of law and
resulting in undue harassment to the accused. What is to be noted from
Section 258 Cr.P.C. is that it applies only to those cases which are instituted
on police reports but not to the cases instituted upon private complaints.
This was made clear in the following judgments.
a) In John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan. Apex Court held thus:
One of the normal rules in summons cases is that once trial started, it should
reach its normal culmination. But Section 258 is included in the Chapter XX of
the
Code in the form of an exception to the aforesaid normal progress chart of the
trial
in summons cases. But by S.258 the power of Court to discharge an accused at
midway stage is restricted to those cases instituted otherwise than on
complaints
wherein no material witness was examined at all.
b) Similar view was taken in another decision reported in Manjunath
C.Kammar v. A.Kanthilak and Company wherein Karnataka High court
held thus:
10. In these two matters, the proceedings are initiated on the basis of the
complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Under such circumstances, the learned
Magistrate does not get Jurisdiction to proceed under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and
the
same can be exercised only if the proceedings are instituted otherwise than upon
a
complaint. In other words, the language of Section 258 Cr.P.C. is clear that
this
Section applies only to cases based on police report. As the present cases are
based on private complaints, Section 258 Cr.P.C. will not apply to these cases.
Therefore, from Section 258 Cr.P.C. and above precedential jurisprudence,
it is clear that stoppage of proceeding at different stages as contemplated
under Section 258 Cr.P.C. can take place only in those cases instituted
otherwise than upon a complaint. As already stated, since the case on hand
is one instituted upon private complaint, the benefit under Section 258
Cr.P.C. cannot be extended to it. Sofaras other points raised by the
petitioner/A2 is concerned, the trial Court rightly held that whether the
complainant deposed falsehood with regard to timing of the offence and
other material facts or not can be decided only after due trial. In this
petition
the same cannot be determined which will amount to premature conclusion.
So, at the outset, the impugned order does not suffer any illegality or
irregularity warranting interference.
6) Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
Date: 31.03.2015