1. Heard Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party no.1.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 13 of 2019, Ramnaresh @ Naresh vs. Pinkal Singh @ Raghvendra Singh and others, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(Gha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur and also to quash the summoning order dated 15.02.2021 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mirzapur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention to the complaint dated 04.07.2018 and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 and has sought quashing of the summoning order and the entire proceedings by referring to the factual aspects of the case and the defence which is sought to be set up on behalf of the applicants.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the contention which is sought to be raised, would require appreciation of evidence and entering into the disputed questions of fact, which would be beyond the scope and purview of powers to be exercised under Section 482 of the Code at this stage of the proceedings. It is also pointed out that the statement of the complainant under Section 200 and of the witnesses under Section 202 having supported the allegations made in the complaint, the order passed by the Magistrate directing issuance of summons, cannot be faulted with.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to point out any inconsistency between the allegations made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 of the Code. The statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 of the Code during the course of inquiry made by the Magistrate have also not been shown to be inconsistent with the allegations made in the complaint.
6. The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mirzapur, upon a consideration of the facts stated in the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 and also the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code has drawn a conclusion with regard to existence of a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused-applicants and accordingly has directed issuance of summons.
7. The procedure to be followed by the Magistrate upon taking cognizance of an offence is provided under Chapter XV of the Code. The provisions contained under Sections 200, 202 and 204 would be required to be adverted to for the purpose.
8. Section 200 provides that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and that the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. The object of such examination is with a view to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint, and to prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such person.
9. The object of section 202 is to enable the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether the process is to be issued or not. The purpose of the investigation to be directed under this section is to help the Magistrate in arriving at a decision as to the issuance of process. The broad based inquiry by the Magistrate, as contemplated under this section, is with a view to enable him to arrive at a decision as to whether he should dismiss the complaint or whether he should proceed to issue process upon the complaint.
10. The provisions contained under sections 200, 202 and 204 of the Code and the degree of satisfaction required to be recorded at this stage by the Magistrate was subject matter of consideration in S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another2 and it was held that test which was required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". Referring to the earlier decisions in the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal and Another3, Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose4, and Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others5, it was stated that the scope of inquiry under section 202 is limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (i) on the material placed by the complainant before the court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.
11. The sufficiency of the material and the test to be applied at the stage of issue of process again came up for consideration in the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another6 and it was reiterated that the limited purpose of consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as distinguished from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt".
12. The object of the inquiry under Section 202 is not akin to a trial, which can only take place after issuance of process. The inquiry made by the Magistrate, at this stage, is only with a view to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint, with reference to the intrinsic quality of the statements made before him at the inquiry, which would mean the complaint, the statement on oath made by the complainant and the statements made by persons examined at the instance of the complainant. At the stage of issue of process under Section 204, the Magistrate is only to decide whether there exists sufficient ground or not for proceeding in the matter.
13. The aforementioned legal position has been discussed in a recent judgment of this Court in Sanjay Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and another7.
14. In the case at hand, the allegations in the complaint have been found to be supported in the statement made on oath by the complainant during the course of examination under section 200 and also by the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of inquiry made by the Magistrate under section 202. The order summoning the accused applicants passed by the trial court indicates that the same has been passed taking due consideration of the material available on record. Reference has been made to the statements under Sections 200 and 202 and also the fact that the statements recorded support the complaint allegations. The order passed by the court below issuing process thus does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
15. Learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to dispute the aforesaid legal position with regard to the degree of satisfaction required to be recorded by the Magistrate at the stage of issuance of process, and accordingly, he states that he does not wish to press the prayer for quashing of the proceedings of the complaint case.
16. Learned counsel states that the applicants would submit to the jurisdiction of the court below and seek bail.
17. In case any such application is moved, the court below would be expected to dispose it of in accordance with the settled principles of law.
18. Subject to the aforesaid observation the application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Pratima (Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.)