1. This Criminal Petition one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the ‘Code’) is directed against the order dated 22-3-1984 passed by the Learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Srirangapatna in C.C. No. 24/1982 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner complainant also under the same provision requesting the Magistrate to state to the accused the particulars of the offences alleged in the complaint and not taken cognizance by the Magistrate.
2. The matter arises in this way.
3. The petitioner (who will hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) filed a private complaint for offences under Sections 120B, 166, 167, 198, 201, 217 & 417 read with Section 109 I.P.C. The Magistrate, after following the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV, took cognizance of offences under Sections 465, 423, 426 and 120-B read with 109 I.P.C. Thereupon the Court issued summons for the attendance of the accused since the offences for which cognizance was taken were
triable as summons cases. In pursuance of the summons issued, the accused appeared and the Learned Magistrate stated to the accused the substance of the accusation of the offences taken cognizance as required under Section 251 of the Code. It appears at that stage the complainant presented an application under Section 482 of the Code with a prayer referred earlier which was rejected by the Learned Magistrate as per his Order dated 22nd March 1984. Hence this Criminal Petition.
4. Sri B.V. Deshpande, Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that Section 251 of the Code requires in the interest of justice broader, rather than narrower interpretation as sought to be placed by the Learned Magistrate. In rejecting the application filed by the complainant, he narrowed down the scope and ambit of Section 251. In this regard, Sri Deshpande submitted that the prayer made by the complainant ought to have been granted by the Learned Magistrate.
5. Sri C.R.Y. Swamy, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents argued in support of the impugned order.
6. Admittedly the prosecution was initiated against the accused upon a private complaint lodged by the complainant for various offences. The Trial Magistrate following the procedure contemplated in Chapter XV, conducted an enquiry and finally took cognizance of the offences punish – able under Sections 465, 423, 426, 120-B read with 109 I.P.C He did not take cognizance of the offences under Sectional 166, 167, 198, 201, 217 and 417 I.P.C. alleged in the com-plaint. Consequent upon taking cognizance of the offences referred above, the Court further proceeded to issue summons to the accused for those offences under Section 204 and on the appearance of the accused in pursuance of the summons, stated the substance of the accusation of the offences taken cognizance, of under Section 251 of the Code. Section 251 reads :
“Substance of accusation to be stated.- When in a summons case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.”
The ‘particulars of the offence of which he is accused’ would mean, the particulars of the offences of which he is accused through the summons served upon him under Section 204 of the Code after taking cognizance of the offences in respect of which the summons was issued and not the particulars of all the offences alleged by the
complainant in the original complaint as contended before me on behalf of the complainant. If this interpretation were to be accepted and the particulars of all the offences stated in the complaint are to be stated to the accused even if cognizance was not taken in respect of all those offences, then the initial procedure to be followed on a private com-plaint as contemplated under Chapter XV would become otiose. The object of the enquiry under Chapter XV is to find out whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint in respect of all the offences alleged or in respect of any of the offences or there is no ground to proceed with the complaint at all for any of the offences. If once the Court comes to the conclusion after holding an enquiry under Chapter XV that there is ground to proceed with only in respect of some of the offences and not in respect of all the offences alleged in the complaint, Section 251, in my opinion, contemplates accusation to be stated to the accused in respect of those offences taken cognizance and not in respect of all the offences alleged in the com-plaint. The language of Section 251, in my opinion, does not admit the interpretation sought to be placed by Sri Deshpande.
7. Before parting with this case, I feel it inclined to notice as to how the application filed by the complainant under Section 482 was entertained by the Court below in view of the unambiguous language of the said section. It reads:
“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
The language of Section 482 excerpted above, in my opinion, does not admit any other subordinate Court within the sweep of Section 482. Thus 1 hold that applications under Section 482 of the Code cannot be entertained by any Court other than the High Court.
8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the Peti-tion fails and the same is. dismissed.