Called out in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners to prosecute this petition nor there is any request for adjournment of the case. The case relates to the year 2013. Six years have gone by. This court has no option but to decide the petition with the assistance of learned A.G.A.
The petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 30, Lucknow in complaint Case No.3318 of 2011 under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Kakori, District Lucknow.
It has been stated in the petition that the opposite party no.3 has filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which has been treated as Complaint Case and after recording the statements of the complainant as well as the witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going through the relevant records, passed the summoning order dated 21.05.2012, which is illegal and arbitrary. It has been also stated that the opposite party no.3 has committed fraud as she solemnized marriage with another person without the divorce.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, argued that the order, summoning the accused-applicants, has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on the basis of the evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and there is nothing illegal in it.
In the case of Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose, I964 (1) SCR 693, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the stage of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction. Again in the case of Smt. Nagwwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and ohers, 1976 (1) ACC 225 (S.C.) while considering the scope of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the basis of the materials placed by the complainant before the Court; (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (c) for deciding the questin purely from the point of view of complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In that case, it has been held by way of illustration that the order of Magistrate issung process can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value made out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused.
In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2002 (44) ACC 168 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the stage of passing order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. searching sufficient ground to convict is not necessary.
In the present case, the Magistrate concerned, after considering the evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has concluded that prima facie a case is made out against the applicants and as such the applicants have been summoned as accused. A perusal of the aforesaid statements reveals that the applicants have, prima facie, committed offence and in these circumstances it cannot be held that the Magistrate has committed any illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned order.
In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the progress of the proceedings. Moreover, the applicants have right to be discharged under Sections 239/227/228/245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be by making a proper application for the said purpose containing therein their submissions with regard to their discharge.
At this stage there is no occasion to look into the question, whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not since that would be a subject matter of trial. No substantial ground has been made out which may justify interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. From perusal of the record, it cannot be said that the cognizable offence is not made out against the petitioners.
The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 VNP/-