Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 510 (PAT)

Pashupati Nath Sinha v. State of Bihar

2006-06-22

body2006
ORDER This is an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 23.7.2003 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Criminal Revision No.8 of 2003/6 of 2003 whereby he has set aside the order dated 12.12.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 925 of 2002. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the above order had dismissed the complaint. 2. It appears that a complaint case bearing no. 925 of 2002 was filed by the complainant in which enquiry under section 202 of the Code was also conducted after recording the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considering the materials gathered in course of enquiry found no sufficient material to issue summons against the accused persons and he accordingly dismissed the complaint petition. The complainant preferred criminal revision application bearing 8 of 2003/6 of 2003. The Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the complainant (petitioner in the revision application) came to the conclusion that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the evidence like a trial court without ascertaining the fact whether from the materials on record a prima facie case was made out for the purpose of summoning the accused. He accordingly set aside the order and allowed the revision application and the matter was remitted back to the court below for further enquiry as provided under the law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is based on erroneous concept of law. He submitted that the learned Magistrate is well within his powers to dismiss the complaint petition after considering the statements of the complainant and witnesses examined under section 202Cr.P.C. 4. The learned A.P.P. defended the order. 5. It is well settled that at this stage the Magistrate has only to see whether the complaint discloses the commission of an offence and there is evidence in support of it. He has just to see whether there is prima facie case to proceed against the accused. The Magistrate cannot at this stage weigh the evidence. But it appears that the learned Magistrate has weighed the evidence meticulously as if he was holding a trial. He has thus exceeded his limit in dismissing the complaint. He has just to see whether there is prima facie case to proceed against the accused. The Magistrate cannot at this stage weigh the evidence. But it appears that the learned Magistrate has weighed the evidence meticulously as if he was holding a trial. He has thus exceeded his limit in dismissing the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge was quite justified in allowing the revision application. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed.