JUDGMENT
B.R. Arora, J.
1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 27-7-94, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sojat, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences Under Sections 452 and 323 I.P.C. and issued warrants of arrest to procure their presence.
2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that while taking the cognizance, the learned Magistrate passed the order in a mechanical manner without considering the material collected by the estagating officer as well as the reasons given by him with final report. The investigation agency, after due investigation, presented a Final Report and the learned Magistrate even did not consider the reasons given by the investigating agency and took the cognizance against the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
4. The order taking cognizance is an ex-parte order passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the accused. The petitioners may, therefore, appear before the learned Magistrate in pursuance to the process issued against them and show to the Court that the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected by the investigating agency do not constitute any crime involving the accused and satisfy the Court that if the Final Report, submitted by the investigating agency, and the relevant material would have been taken into consideration, the process against them could not have been issued. When such thing will be brought to the notice of the Court then the Court will consider the arguments advanced by the accused and if it is satisfied on reconsideration of the material available on record that no offence, for which the process has been issued, has been made-out, on the basis of which the accused could be tried, it can then drop the proceedings. The learned trial Court cannot deny the reconsideration of the case for dropping the proceeding, when once the process has been issued, on the ground that there are no specific provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure for reconsideration of the case. It is the judicial discretion vested in the Court and no provisions are required for the Magistrate to drop the proceedings as has been laid down by the Apex Court in: K.M. Methew v. The State of Kerla and Anr. . No person can be tried without a prima facie case against him and the issuance of the process cannot act as a bar to drop the proceedings if the F.I.R., the evidence collected by the investigating agency and produced before the Court, on the very face of it, do not disclose any offence against the accused. The powers Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be lightly used in quashing the order taking the cognizance when a prima facie case has been made-out against the accused-petitioners. But, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it proper to modify the order dated 27-7-94 and directed the trial Court to procure the presence of the petitioners by way of issuing bailable warrants instead of warrants of arrest.
5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this miscellaneous petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to issue bailable warrants, instead of warrants of arrest, to procure the presence of the accused-petitioners.