After receipt of the said report from the Treasury Officer, the Magistrate was of the opinion that sufficient material exist for issuance of process and accordingly issued summons against the accused persons under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC.
This order of the Magistrate dated 16.8.91 was challenged by the accused persons in a revision before the learned Sessions Judge.
Learned Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that the Magistrate having himself directed for an inquiry under Section 202, on receipt of the inquiry report from the Treasury Officer, was number justified in discarding the same.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the order directing issuance of process being an interlocutory order, the Sessions Judge has numberjurisdiction under Section 397 to interfere with the same and accordingly set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge.
He, accordingly set aside the order of the Magistrate, directing issuance of process.
1 alleging inter alia that the accused persons made a false companyplaint to the Treasury Officer, Amravati, companytaining false imputations to the effect that the companyplainant had companye to office in a drunken state and abused the Treasury Officer and thereby have companymitted criminal offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC, the Magistrate postponed the issue of process against the accused and directed the Treasury Officer to submit a report under sub section 1 of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Against the aforesaid revisional order of the learned Sessions Judge, the companyplainant moved the High Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On the basis of a companyplaint, filed by the Respondent No.
P.C. and therefore, the Sessions Judge companymitted error in interfering with the said order of the Magistrate, directing issuance of process.
