Velaga Satya Venkata Seetaramam vs Kuntaam Narayanamma and Others

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.—This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed to quash the order dated 6.9.1999 passed in Crl.R.P.No. 37 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam confirming the order dated 2.3.1997 in C.C. No. 82 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam.

Before adverting to the question as to whether the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity requiring any interference by this Court as such in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. P.C., it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts.

The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. 82 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam. He filed a private complaint against A-1 to A-10 alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 424, 425 and 427 IPC. The complainant examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 in order to establish the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, DW-1 was examined but no documents were marked.

The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the oral and the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner-complainant and upon consideration of the version of the defence, found all the accused persons not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 424 and 427 IPC and accordingly acquitted all of them by judgment dated 21st March 1997. The learned Magistrate while acquitting the accused persons, issued show-cause notice purporting it to be u/s 250(1) Cr. P.C. to the petitioner-complainant for filing a private complaint against A-1 to A-4, A-6, A-9 and A-10 (respondents herein) to show-cause as to why he should not be ordered to pay compensation of Rest. 500/- to each one of them for making accusations without any reasonable ground. The petitioner-complainant submitted his written explanation on 31.3.1997 and 2.4.1997. The learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the explanations submitted by the petitioner-complainant, came to the conclusion that the complainant vexatiously prosecuted the respondents-accused persons without any reasonable ground and accordingly ordered the petitioner-complainant to pay compensation of Rs. 500/- to each of the respondents herein by order dated 29.5.1997.

Petitioner-complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 37 of 1997 before the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam challenging the said order. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge upon elaborate consideration of the matter upheld the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned District & Sessions Judge held that the respondents-accused persons were made to appear before the Court and face the trial unnecessarily. They must have suffered great deal of hardship and agony. The opinion of the learned Magistrate that there was no reasonable ground for making accusations against seven of the accused persons who were not present at the scene of offence was confirmed. The learned District and Sessions Judge did not find any error in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and accordingly confirmed the same. Hence this petition.

Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned judgment of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge confirming the order dated 21.3.1997 passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from procedural infirmities. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the courts below failed to appreciate the true nature and scope of Section 250(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel contends that the learned Magistrate after issuing show-cause notice to the complainant asking his explanation as to why an appropriate order be passed u/s 250(1) Cr. P.C. and having received the explanation, ought to have made an enquiry into the matter. In nutshell, it is contended that the parties ought to have been examined once again before recording any conclusion for awarding the compensation.

It would be required to notice Section 250(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is to be followed. A bare reading of Section 250(1) Cr. P.C. would make it abundantly clear that if the learned Magistrate after the discharge or acquittal of all or any of the accused is of the opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making accusation against the accused or any one of them, he may by his order for discharge or acquittal call upon the complainant or the informant forthwith to show-cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused or to each or any of the accused. All that is required in law is that the learned Magistrate while acquitting or discharging the accused should come to a prima facie conclusion that there was no reasonable ground for making accusation against the accused by the informant or the complainant, as the case may be.

It is true as contended by the learned counsel that unless the learned Magistrate reaches such prima facie conclusion, no show-cause notice itself could be issued to the complainant or informant requiring his explanation in the matter as to why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of the accused as the case may be. In the instant case, the record would disclose that the learned Magistrate having acquitted the respondents-accused herein on all the charges come to the prima facie conclusion that there was no reasonable ground for the complainant for making the accusations against the respondents-accused. It is under those circumstances the learned Magistrate set the law in motion against the petitioner-complainant and accordingly directed a notice of show-cause requiring his explanation as to why he should not be made to pay compensation to the respondents-accused.

The complainant submitted his written explanation to the said show-cause notice. There is no dispute whatsoever that the learned Magistrate having taken the explanation into consideration came to the conclusion and satisfied himself that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusations against the respondents-accused. The learned Magistrate having recorded the reasons as to why he is not inclined to accept the explanation submitted by the petitioner-complainant, ordered awarding compensation to the respondents herein at the rate of Rs. 500/- to each one of them to be paid by the petitioner-complainant.

The order passed by the learned Magistrate, in my considered opinion, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The learned Magistrate followed the procedure as provided for u/s 250(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C. There is no further detailed enquiry as such contemplated by Section 250 (1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., as is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. All that the learned Magistrate required is to take the explanation into consideration and record the reasons to the effect that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusations by the complainant or the informant as the case may be. The reasons are recorded by the learned Magistrate. In the circumstances, the order passed by the learned Magistrate awarding compensation to the respondents does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

The learned District and Sessions Judge has rightly confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The order has not resulted in any miscarriage of justice.

In the circumstances, no case is made out requiring any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The criminal petition shall accordingly stand dismissed.