JUDGMENT 1. 1. This petition Under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 21.10.93 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana has directed that charges for the offences Under section 379, 447 Indian Penal Code be framed against all the petitioners. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that on 10.1.83 Om Prakash respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bayana alleging therein that the disputed piece of land situate at village Hailena, belonged to one Prabhati Jat, that on 15.7.74 Prabhati Jat had executed a usufructuary mortgage of the said land in favour of the complaint, that on 20.3.80 Prabhati Jat sold the land to him, that in order to carry out some construction the complainant had stored stones worth Rs. 200/- on the said land, that on 3.1.83 Radhey and Sunpun petitioners prepared a false and fictitious sale deed of the disputed land in favour of Ram Khiladi petitioner and that on 8.1.83 all the petitioners committed trespass on the disputed land and dishonestly removed the stones from complainant's possession. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police station Weir Under section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code for investigation. Crime No. 15 of 1983 Under sections 120B, 193, 379, 447 Indian Penal Code was registered at the Police Station Weir and investigation was started. 3. While the case was still pending investigation the complainant filed yet another complaint on 18.6.83 on same facts alleging therein that the police was not conducting investigation properly. This complaint was, however, dismissed on 8.11.83 for absence of and default of prosecution by the complainant. 4. On 11.11.83 the complainant filed yet another complaint on same facts. On 9.3.84 the learned Magistrate informed the complainant that in the case registered on his complaint the police had submitted final report. The complainant desired to produce evidence in support of his complaint and further requested the Magistrate to call for the Final Report. The learned Magistrate, after study of final report and the documents submitted therewith, had already accepted the same on 16.7.83. However, he directed that the Final Report and the documents submitted therewith be put up alongwith the complaint. The complainant desired to produce evidence in support of his complaint and further requested the Magistrate to call for the Final Report. The learned Magistrate, after study of final report and the documents submitted therewith, had already accepted the same on 16.7.83. However, he directed that the Final Report and the documents submitted therewith be put up alongwith the complaint. The complainant examined himself Under section 200 and his witnesses Under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence Under section 379, 447 Indian Penal Code on 16.8.85 and summoned the petitioners as accused. After the petitioners had put in appearance before him, the learned Magistrate recorded pre-charge evidence and by his order dated 4.1.91 directed that charge for offence Under section 379 Indian Penal Code only would be framed against Ram Khiladi and Kamal petitioners only. He discharged both these petitioners of the offences Under sections 447 Indian Penal Code and rest of the petitioners of the offences Under section 447, 379 Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by such order of the learned Magistrate the complainant filed a revision petition Under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge who accepted the petition and directed that all the petitioners by charged with the offence Under sections 379, 447 Indian Penal Code. It is against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that this petition has been filed in this court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the background history of the case clearly tells that in the facts and circumstances of the case not only the impugned orders as passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge were erroneous but also that the very pendency of the criminal proceedings of the case against the petitioners amounted to the gross abuse of the process of Magistrate's court. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioners had all along been in possession of the disputed land as owner thereof and that their old enmity with Prabhati and other witnesses of the complainant opened the doors of this baseless and groundless litigation upon them. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioners had all along been in possession of the disputed land as owner thereof and that their old enmity with Prabhati and other witnesses of the complainant opened the doors of this baseless and groundless litigation upon them. It was submitted that not only the police on thorough investigation had come to the conclusion that the accusations made against the petitioners were totally false and frivolous but also that the Panches of the village Panchayat, after making local inspection, had accorded permission to the petitioners to make construction on the disputed land. It was also pointed out that the record of the investigation by the police was made a part of the record of the case on complainant's own request but the courts below without examining such record and other documents produced by the petitioners rendered the impugned orders which perpetuate injustice and harassment to them. In the end it was submitted that twice the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2 was dismissed. First time by the police and second time by the learned Magistrate and, therefore, the third complaint should not have been entertained on same facts. In support of his arguments the learned counsel relied upon Supreme Court decision in the case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan, AIR 1962 SC 876 . 6. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned orders and further submitted that at the stage of framing charges against the petitioners pros and cons of the case should not be gone into. Respondent No. 2, despite notice, did not appear to advance any arguments. 7. Since respondent No. 2 who is the complainant in this petition did not appear on the date of argument, I examined the records of the lower courts quite thoroughly and critically with a view to satisfy myself with the correctness of the findings recorded, propriety of the orders made and the regularity of the proceedings taken by them. Such examination has disclosed upon me that in the facts and circumstances of the case the orders made by the courts below were not only improper and erroneous but also that the continuance of the present proceedings. Such examination has disclosed upon me that in the facts and circumstances of the case the orders made by the courts below were not only improper and erroneous but also that the continuance of the present proceedings. Particularly in the wake of civil proceedings having being admittedly, already taken in the matter, is wholly unwarranted and unjustified and do in fact amount to abuse of the process of the court of the learned Magistrate. 8. It may be recalled that respondent No. 2 had filed his complaint before the learned Magistrate on 10.1.83 and such complaint had been forwarded to police Under section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code for investigation. After investigation the police had submitted a negative report in the case and the learned Magistrate had accepted such negative report on 16.7.83. Before that the complainant had filed his second complaint on 18.6.83. This complaint was kept pending for receipt of the report from the police but was dismissed on 8.11.83 for absence of the complainant. However, the third complaint was filed on 11.11.83. Proceedings on this complaint were postponed till the receipt of the record of the Final Report from the police. On receipt of such records proceedings Under section 200, 202 Criminal Procedure Code were taken. So far the learned Magistrate had adopted the right procedure. But while taking cognizance of the offences Under section 379 and 447 Indian Penal Code in the case after having called for the record of the Final Report, the learned Magistrate was required to examine the negative report submitted by the police and the documents submitted therewith. There is no doubt in the settled position of law that the Magistrate was not bound to accept the negative report as submitted by the police and was quite competent to differ from the findings recorded and conclusions arrived at by the police and take cognizance of an offence, the commission of which was found prima facie disclosed by the material on such negative report. Even if he had accepted the Final Report, he was not barred from proceeding in the case in accordance with Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and to examine the complaint Under section 200 and his witnesses Under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code But after having done that the learned Magistrate was required to take into account the police report and the document submitted therewith before taking cognizance of any offence and issuing process Under section 204 Criminal Procedure Code and summoning the petitioners as accused of the offence(s) by which he had taken cognizance. The learned Magistrate failed to act in that way and therefore, the proceedings taken by him became irregular. 9. It may be observed at this stage that where the Investigating Agency on its own or Under section 154 Criminal Procedure Code or under orders of the Magistrate Under section 156 Criminal Procedure Code has investigated into the commission of an alleged offence and submitted a negative report after investigation, the Magistrate before issuing process Under section 204 Criminal Procedure Code on the basis of enquiry conducted by him Under section 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code, is required to take into account the negative report of the police and the documents submitted therewith and then make his prima facie satisfaction of the necessity of issuing process Under section 204 Criminal Procedure Code It should not be lost sight of that the Investigating Agency submitted a negative report in the matter after conducting investigation into the commission of the alleged offence. The Magistrate should take into such report and the documents submitted by the police in support of its negative report. It is necessary to do so to avoid repeated enquiry and investigation into offences based on same facts. The exparte evidence procured Under section 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code should be examined alongwith and in the light of the negative report of the police and the documents submitted alongwith such report. More often than not be violation of such procedure leads to avoidable prosecutions. 10. The exparte evidence procured Under section 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code should be examined alongwith and in the light of the negative report of the police and the documents submitted alongwith such report. More often than not be violation of such procedure leads to avoidable prosecutions. 10. In the instant case the police had found no investigation that the petitioners had been in possession of the disputed land since long that the village Panchayat had accorded to them permission to make construction as back as in 1965, that the complainant had never stored any stones on the land in dispute and that no occurrence as stated by the complainant in the complaint had even occurred. In support of such findings and conclusions the police had inter alia submitted the statements of Sohan Lal. Suresh, Shyam besides/ the photostat copies from the report of the village Panchayat. Sohan Lal appear^ to have stated that the plot belonged to Prabhati but about 15-16 years bi&ck Radhey Nai (petitioner) used to have his possession thereon, that Prabhati rfiortgaged the plot with the complainant but Radhey Nai sold the same to Ram Khiladi petitioner, that both Om Prakash complainant and Ram Khiladi petitioner Applied to the Gram Panchayat for grant of permission to make construction on the disputed plot but while the Panchayat refused to grant permission to the complainant, Permission to make construction was granted to Ram Khiladi. Suresh appears to have stated that when Radhey Nai had got permission to raise pator on the disputed plot. Prabhati had mortgaged the same to Om Prakash complainant and that both the parties were litigating before the Civil Court. Shyam had stated that he had been contacted by the complainant to raise construction over the disputed plot, that thereupon he went to the spot but found no stones lying thereupon and that Ram Khiladi was in possession of the said plot. The documents submitted alongwith the negative police report included the applications of the parties, seeking permission from Gram Panchayat to make construction over the disputed plot. The objections filed against such applications, local inspection report by the Panchayat and order of the Panchayat granting permission to the petitioners. The documents submitted alongwith the negative police report included the applications of the parties, seeking permission from Gram Panchayat to make construction over the disputed plot. The objections filed against such applications, local inspection report by the Panchayat and order of the Panchayat granting permission to the petitioners. The documents submitted alongwith the police report thus prima facie showed that Radhey Nai, as back as in 1965 and Ram Khiladi in the year 1981 were accorded permissions to make construction on the land in dispute, that such permission was refused to Om Prakash respondent No. 2 and that no stones were lying on the spot on or before the day of alleged incident of theft. All such material consisting of oral and documentary evidence collected by the police, prima facie showed that the petitioners had been in actual physical possession of the disputed land since long and that Prabhati and/or Om Prakash complainant had not been in possession thereof. Not only that the time of taking cognizance of offences Under section 379, 447 Indian Penal Code all such evidence was over looked and ignored by the learned Magistrate but also that at the time of framing charges against the petitioners Under section 447, 379 Indian Penal Code the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge grossly erred in not even, referring to them. The learned Sessions Judge even failed to appreciate that PW 2 Prabhati and his son PW 3 Sohan were quite inimical to the petitioners in as much as Prabhati in Criminal Case No. 47/1981 and his another son Nathi in Criminal Case No. 271 of 1981 had unsuccessfully prosecuted the petitioners on one accusation of the other. 11. At the time of framing charge the court is certainly not required to sift and weigh the evidence with a view to record a finding on the guilt or innocence of the accused. But it has to sift and weigh such evidence to find out if there exists prima facie evidence to frame the charge against the accused. For making its satisfaction the court is required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the material available on its record. But it has to sift and weigh such evidence to find out if there exists prima facie evidence to frame the charge against the accused. For making its satisfaction the court is required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the material available on its record. Had that been done in the present case the learned courts below would have come to the irresistible conclusion that the second/third complainant was totally false, frivolous and vexation presented and being continued to be prosecuted only to harass the petitioners. Time is perhaps ripe to convey the message to the Magistrate that the process of their courts is not meant to unnecessarily prosecute and harass such litigant who have genuine rights to defend their properties and have already approached regular Civil courts for adjudication and protection of such rights. To sum up the impugned order is found not only bad in law and on facts but also perpetuating abuse of the process of the court of the Magistrate, Bayana. The complainant filed by Om Prakash respondent is found false. Frivolous and vexation filed to,harass the petitioners and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result the impugned orders of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the Magistrate framing and/or directing to frame charges for the offence Under sections 447, 379 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners are set aside and the proceedings quashed. The complaint filed by Om Prakash respondent is found false, frivolous and vexation and is accordingly dismissed with compensation Under section 250 Criminal Procedure Code at Rs. 2,000/- to the respondents and cost at Rs. 1,000/- to the State.Revision Allowed. *******