Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1963 (ALL)

RAVINDRA KUMAR PATEL v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-07-07

SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This revision has been preferred by the revisionist to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 24.4.2010 passed by the learned Special CJM, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 182 of 2008 (Ravindra Kumar v. Deepak Patel and others) under Sections 147, 452, 380, 427, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C., P.S. Chaubepur, district Varanasi. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. on 5.3.2008 before the learned court below stating therein that the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 at about 8.00 a.m. on 11.3.2008 entered the house of revisionist, abused him by using filthy languages and caused injuries to him by lathi-danda and butt of country made pistol and damaged household goods of the complainant causing loss of about Rs. 50,000/- and also forcibly took away his motorcycle and his wife from his house. The complainant got himself medically examined in the Government Hospital at Varanasi on the same day approached the police authorities, but since his case was not registered at the police station, he moved an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. After registration and investigation of the case, the police submitted a final report. A protest petition was filed by the complainant against the above final report. The protest petition was treated as complaint by the learned trial court. The statement of complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses under Section 202, Cr.P.C. were recorded in the court. Ultimately, the learned trial court rejected that complaint under Section 203, Cr.P.C. holding that the incident is doubtful. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Magistrate was legally obliged to record reasons for rejecting the complaint under Section 203, Cr.P.C. Since he has not done so, the impugned order passed by him is not legally justified. 5. In order to appreciate the contention of the revisionist a perusal of the provisions contained under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is necessary which reads as follows : “203. 5. In order to appreciate the contention of the revisionist a perusal of the provisions contained under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is necessary which reads as follows : “203. If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.” 6. A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that in case the Magistrate is inclined to dismiss the complaint he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. The ipugned order passed by the Magistrate shows that since the complainant has sustained injuries of simple nature on his person, though injuries are said to have been caused by three persons with lathi-danda and the point of country made pistol the incident appears to be doubtful. 7. The learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal and another, 1973 ACC 181 wherein it is observed as follows : “The word ‘Sufficient ground’ used also in Section 209 have been construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima-facie case is made out against the person accused by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. Test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and where there was prima-facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is selfcontradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence make out a prima-facie case. In a revision against such a refusal, the High Court also has to apply the same test.” 8. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is selfcontradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence make out a prima-facie case. In a revision against such a refusal, the High Court also has to apply the same test.” 8. Similarly, in the case of Chandru Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose @ Chabi Bose @ Chabi Bose, 1963 AIR 1430 (SC) it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that : “The scope and object of Section 203 is to enable the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether process should be issued or not and to remove from his mind any hesitation that he may have felt upon the mere perusal of the complainant and the consideration of the complainant’s evidence on oath. The courts have also pointed out in these cases that what the Magistrate has to see is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations of the complainant and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction.” Lastly, in the above case, the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded as follows : “We may point out that since the object of an inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true, the Magistrate acting under Section 203 has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In order to come to this conclusion, he is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him or recorded in an enquiry under Section 202, or statements made in an investigation under that Section, as the case may be. He is not entitled to rely upon any material besides this. 9. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeramma Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, 1976 (13) ACC 225 (SC) in which it has been held that it is extremely limited only to ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint(a) on 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 question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. 10. 10. In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others v. State of Bihar and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “at the stage of Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. searching sufficient ground to convict is not necessary.” 11. The above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the provisions contained under Section 203, Cr.P.C. specifically reveal that the learned trial court is not required to search sufficient ground to convict the accused mentioned in the complaint, but it is only required to look at the evidence brought on record with a view to find out as to whether the complainant has made out a prima-facie case against the accused and sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. 12. In the present case, it appears that the complainant has examined himself under Section 203, Cr.P.C. in support of the complaint case and has further examined two witnesses, namely, Pancham and Pradeep Kumar Bhartiya in which it has come that the accused caused injuries to him and one accused caused injury to the complainant by the butt of the country made pistol. There is no evidence on record that by the Iron edge pipe of the country made pistol the complainant was beaten. Similarly, there is injury report of the complainant, who was medically examined on the same day in the emergency ward of Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Chikitsalaya, Varanasi. Apparently, four injuries of contusions of different dimensions on different parts of the body of the injured have been found by the doctor. In addition to it there are two complaints of pain also. Prima-facie, the version of the complaint get support by the medical evidence and by evidence of two independent witnesses examined by him before the court. Only because any grievous injury was not found on his person, the learned trial court found the case of complainant as suspicious and rejected the complaint under Section 203, Cr.P.C. At this stage the Magistrate was only required to see as to whether there was prima-facie evidence in favoaur of the complainant or not. He was not conducting trial of the case so as to find out whether the injuries mentioned in the injury report are fictitious or would be caused by the weapon mentioned in the complaint case. 13. Apparently, there impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be justified. 14. He was not conducting trial of the case so as to find out whether the injuries mentioned in the injury report are fictitious or would be caused by the weapon mentioned in the complaint case. 13. Apparently, there impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be justified. 14. Accordingly, it is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned cases. 15. With the aforesaid observations, the revision is finally disposed of. ————