JUDGMENT
Mohan Santanagoudar, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Since the parties in both the petitions are one and the same and since the common questions of law and fact are involved in both these matters, both these matters are taken up simultaneously and are disposed of by the following common order.
3. Criminal Petition Nos. 260 and 261 of 2003 are filed against the common order passed by the Sessions Court, Gadag in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 29 and 30 of 2000, dated 20th November, 2002. The Sessions Court has confirmed the order dated 26-5-1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, I Court, Gadag in C.C. No. 485 of 1998 clubbed with C.C. No. 608 of 1998.
4. The respondent who is common in both these criminal petitions filed complaints against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, I Court, Gadag and same were registered as P.C. Nos. 63 and 84 of 1998. After taking cognizance, the same were registered as C.C. Nos. 485 and 608 of 1998 respectively. The learned Magistrate issued process to the revisional petitioner in both the matters. The petitioner herein who is the accused before the Court below filed applications under Section 258 of the Cr. P.C. praying the Court to stop the further proceedings. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said applications by the order dated 26-5-1999. The legality of the said order was questioned before the Sessions Court, Gadag in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 29 and 30 of 2000. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed both the criminal revision petitions. Hence the present criminal petitions are filed before this Court invoking Section 482 of the Cr, P.C. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged various contentions on the merits of the matter and contended that the Magistrate ought to have dropped the proceedings as there is no merit in continuing the criminal proceedings before the Magistrate Court.
6. The matters on hand are summons cases based on the complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. The maximum punishment that can be imposed on the accused in the event of his conviction is two years.
7. In this connection, it is relevant to extract Section 258 of the Cr. P.C. 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”.
8. A plain, reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the jurisdiction under Section 258 of the Cr, P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate only;
(a) if the case is a summons case; and (b) if the case is instituted otherwise upon a complaint. Admittedly, the cases on hand are to be tried as summons cases. 9. One of the essential ingredients of the 'complaint' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that it must be made to a Magistrate either orally or in writing.
10. In these two matters, the proceedings are initiated on the basis of the complaints under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. Under such circumstances, the learned Magistrate does not get jurisdiction to proceed under Section 258 of the 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 of the 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 of the Cr. P.C. will not apply to these cases.
11. Hence, the orders passed by the Courts below are legal and justified. No interference is called for by this Court. The two criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are dismissed.