JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M. Ibohal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Heard also Y. Ashang, learned PP for the State. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No.296 (8) 2014 registered under Section 325 IPC on the file of respondent No.3, lodged by respondent No.4, the charge sheet and the order of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framing the charge. 3. The petitioner, who is an accused facing the trial in Criminal (P) Case No.166 of 2017 on the file of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, has filed the above petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings mainly on the ground that the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and as such, he has not made his statement as the basis of the charge sheet filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. As a result, the charge sheet filed by the police is in violation of Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and hence, illegal and void. 4. The second respondent - Director of Prosecution filed affidavit in opposition stating that it is not compulsory to record the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and it is the finding of the investigation that leads to submit a charge sheet against the accused under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is stated that the charge sheet is supported by the injury report of the victim issued by the Medical Officer. There is no defect in submitting the charge sheet and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offence under Section 325 IPC against the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without recording statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., respondent No.3 laid charge sheet against the petitioner and that the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offence under Section 325 IPC against the petitioner with the statement of the victim is illegal. Moreover, the charge sheet is not supported by the prosecution witnesses viz., the complainant and Dr. Nazir. Moreover, the charge sheet is not supported by the prosecution witnesses viz., the complainant and Dr. Nazir. He would submit that despite the legal situations, by an order dated 05.06.2018, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West framed charge under Section 325 IPC against the petitioner and framing of charge punishable under Section 325 IPC against the petitioner indisputably amounts to miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for quashing of the charge sheet, including the FIR. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Narain Musadi and others v. State of Bihar, reported in (1980) 3 SCC 152 and Appeal (Crl.) Case No.1249 of 2007, decided on 18.09.2007 (Dinesh Dalmia v. C.B.I.). 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that it is not compulsory to record the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and it is the finding of the investigation that leads to submit a charge sheet against the accused under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Since the charge sheet is supported by the medical report, the non-recording of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is not fatal and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The case of the prosecution, as could be seen from the FIR, is that on 11.08.2014 at about 6.49 P.M., while the victim viz., Mayenglambam Fernando Singh along with some of his friends, was in RIMS road, opposite Nityainanda temple, some unknown persons assaulted him physically by using deadly weapon like stone etc. Regarding the occurrence, the complainant, namely, Ishan Chandam lodged a complaint before Awang Leikai PO & PS, Lamlai. After the receipt of the complaint, the police had registered the case against the driver of Maruthi Gypsy bearing registration No.MN0/0276. After investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the petitioner and filed the final report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West against the petitioner. After the receipt of the complaint, the police had registered the case against the driver of Maruthi Gypsy bearing registration No.MN0/0276. After investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the petitioner and filed the final report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West against the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance in Criminal (P) Case No.166 of 2017 under Section 325 IPC and by an order dated 05.06.2018, framed charge under Section 325 IPC against the petitioner. 10. According to the petitioner, the non-recording of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. vitiates the charge sheet laid by respondent No.3. Further, taking cognizance under Section 325 of IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner without the statement of the victim is unsustainable and the same has to be quashed. 11. Section 161 titled “Examination of witnesses by police” provides for oral examination of a person by any Investigating Officer when such person is supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.The purpose and the manner in which the police statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C can be used at any trial are indicated in Section162 of Cr.P.C. Object and purpose of Section 161 is to collect evidence regarding omission of an offence by examining and recording the statements of the witnesses in respect of commission of the offence. Signing of statement under Section 161 is prohibited under Section 162. It is prerogative of police officer to record the statement of a witness examined. These statements are predominantly called as Section 161 Cr.P.C statements. This task is to gather evidence against the accused. After filing charge sheet, these statements will also be perused by the Court to take cognizance of an offence. Such a statement can only be utilized for contradicting the witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act. 12. At this juncture, it would be useful to extract Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which reads: "161. Examination of witnesses by police. - (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. - (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. (3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.” 13. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was satisfied with the sufficiency of the materials placed by the prosecution before him with the report for taking cognizance of the offence and proceeded further taking cognizance and directed issuance of process/ summon against the petitioner. Therefore, the non-recording of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. would not vitiate the criminal proceedings. In support, the learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 42 . 14. In State of Maharashtra, supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: "8. In the instant case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was obviously satisfied with the sufficiency of the material placed by the prosecution before him with the report for taking cognizance of the offence and he therefore proceeded further after taking cognizance and directed the issuance of process against the respondents. The prayer of the investigating agency seeking permission to further investigate and submit "supplementary charge-sheet" could not vitiate the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate nor denude him of his jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The prayer of the investigating agency seeking permission to further investigate and submit "supplementary charge-sheet" could not vitiate the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate nor denude him of his jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The High Court while quashing the order dated 21.11.1986, did not record any finding to the effect that the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process was in anyway improper or that the cognizance was taken on the basis of the material on which no reasonable person could have taken cognizance." 15. Thus, it is clear that if the Magistrate is satisfied, cognizance of the offence is required to be taken and he shall proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the crime. The only say of the petitioner is that since the Investigating Officer failed to record the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. It is the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and that the learned Magistrate alone has to decide whether the material placed by the prosecution with the charge sheet was sufficient to take cognizance or not? The power of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance cannot be controlled by stipulating the manner of taking cognizance in a particular way, unless any procedural violation is shown. The non-recording of the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation by the Investigating Officer, by itself, cannot be aground to set aside the proceedings. 16. It is pertinent to point out that Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. provides that a Magistrate has the power to take cognizance upon a police report (charge sheet) of such facts as are provided therein on being satisfied that the case is a fit one for taking cognizance of the offence. Therefore, if the police report and the material filed therewith are sufficient to satisfy the learned Magistrate that he should take cognizance, his power is not fettered by the label which the Investigating Agency chooses to give to the report submitted by it under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. 17. Therefore, if the police report and the material filed therewith are sufficient to satisfy the learned Magistrate that he should take cognizance, his power is not fettered by the label which the Investigating Agency chooses to give to the report submitted by it under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. 17. In Dinesh Dalmia, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. purports to be an opinion of the investigating officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the Court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5) of Cr.P.C. nothing more need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. 18. In Satya Narain Musadi, Supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the provisions of Section 173 and 190(1)(a)(b) of Cr.P.C., observed that the police report submitted under Section 173(2) after the information received from Mahesh Kant Jha by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was forwarded to police officer in charge of the police station for investigation disclosed sufficient information for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused and to proceed further with the trial, and no case is made out to interfere with the same. 19. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the informant/complainant is one Ishan Chandam and he was cited as PW.1 in the charge sheet. That apart, one A. Samuel of Imphal PS; L. Tomthin Singh of Imphal PS and Dr. Nazir were shown as P.W. 2 to 4 in the charge sheet. 20. It appears that the final report (charge sheet) was filed by the police on 22.08.2016 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West. Thereafter, the same was returned and the respondent police-re-presented the charge sheet and finally, after satisfying the sufficiency of materials, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 325 IPC against the petitioner in Criminal (P) Case No.166 of 2017 and issued process/summon to him. 21. It also appears that after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner, by an order dated 05.06.2018, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner under Section 325 IPC and fixed the case on 17.07.2018 for examination of prosecution witnesses. 21. It also appears that after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner, by an order dated 05.06.2018, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner under Section 325 IPC and fixed the case on 17.07.2018 for examination of prosecution witnesses. It is to be noted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to taking cognizance of the offence by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West. On the other hand, when the trial commenced, the petitioner has come up with the present petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Criminal (P) Case No.166 of 2017 mainly on the ground of non-recording of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 22. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the non-recording of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. would not vitiate the criminal proceedings in Criminal (P) Case No.166 of 2017 as it is not the case of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution case solely depends upon the complaint given by the informant/complainant and the evidence. Since trial commenced, this Court has no power to test the veracity of the complaint and the investigation done by the police. It is for the trial Court to decide the merits of the case. Therefore, at the distant point of time, the ground raised by the petitioner that the criminal proceedings is vitiated for non-recording of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in the present proceedings is unsustainable in law. The petitioner cannot raise such a ground in the present proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner has right to raise the said ground before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to look into the said issue. 23. Insofar as the power and jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is well settled that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court does not function as the Court of appeal or revision. 23. Insofar as the power and jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is well settled that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court does not function as the Court of appeal or revision. The inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is also well settled that the inherent powers under this provision should not be executed to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 24. In the instant case, as stated supra, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the case on hand. While the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West framed charge against the petitioner under Section 325 IPC, it has been recorded as under: "I find materials for framing charge against the accused person for the offence u/s 325 IPC. The Ld. Counsel for accused also admitted the same. Hence, charge framed u/s 325 IPC against the accused person. Inform and read over the charge to accused who on enquired pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried." 25. When no objection has been raised by the petitioner while framing charge against him under Section 325 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding non-recording of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., now at the distant point of time, that too after the commencement of trial, the petitioner cannot seek to quash of the criminal proceedings under the guise of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 26. The wholesome power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In the present case, nothing has been shown allowing the prosecution to continue the proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that proceeding with the trial of the criminal proceedings is no way prejudicial to the petitioner. In the present case, nothing has been shown allowing the prosecution to continue the proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that proceeding with the trial of the criminal proceedings is no way prejudicial to the petitioner. As stated supra, it is for the trial Court to decide the case on merits and in accordance with law and exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot quash the proceedings in Criminal (P) Case No.166 of 2017 when the trial of the case has already been started. 27. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.