Allahabad High Court
Lokendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 10 Others on 10 February, 2021
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3585 of 2021 Applicant :- Lokendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 28.02.2020, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Agra in Complaint Case No. 1818 of 2017 (Lokendra Singh vs. Smt. Geeta and others), under Sections 380, 406, 120-B, 498, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra, whereby complaint filed by applicant has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant has filed a complaint against private respondents and thereafter the applicant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that two witnesses, namely, Laxmi Devi and Soberan Singh were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. but the complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submitted that in view of averment of complaint and statement of informant and of witnesses, a prima facie case for summoning was made out, but the complaint has been dismissed in arbitrary manner. Learned counsel submitted that there are allegations that wife of applicant as well as the other family members and one Robert @ Nitin have taken away the jewellery and cash from the house of applicant and that they have also abused and threatened the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that at this stage, matter was not to be meticulously examined and only it was to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out or not. Learned counsel further argued that impugned order being against facts and law, is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and argued that in the impugned complaint, the applicant has made allegations against his wife and her family members as well as some other persons but there is no evidence to support such allegation. It was submitted that essentially matter appears of matrimonial dispute.
5. At this stage it would be expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows :-
Section 203 Cr.P.C.
"Dismissal of complaint- 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,"
Section 204 Cr.P.C.
"204.Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-
(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or
(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."
6. It is clear that as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings with regard to the complaint case that after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding exists and he may dismiss the complaint. It is well settled that if a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it show that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further, the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.
7. In S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2001 SC 12960 while examining the scope of section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 15,16 and 17 has held as under :
"15. In case of a complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The words 'sufficient ground' used under Section 202 have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction."
16. This Court in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and others, (1993)(3)SCC 753), in para 22, referring to scheme of Sections 200-203 of Cr.P.C. has explained that "The section does not say that a regular trial of adjudging truth or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage, for, such a person can be called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has been issued and he is on trial. Section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials there is in his judgment not sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose (1964 (1)SCR 639) where dismissal of a complaint by the Magistrate at the stage of Section 2092 inquiry was set aside, this Court laid down that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed (p.653) that 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 a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case."
17. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kongalgi (1976(3) SCC 736) this Court dealing with the scope of inquiry under Section 202 has stated that it is extremely limited only to the 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. It is also indicated by way of illustration in which cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process can be quashed on such case being "where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused."
8. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that applicant is seeking summoning of his wife and her family members and some other persons as accused by making various allegations. Perusal of record shows that initially a non cognizable report was lodged by applicant against one Robert, Chitrans and Mohit, wherein mere allegation made was that the wife of applicant has fled away with said Robert but thereafter in the impugned complaint entirely new version was developed and several family members of wife were also arrayed as accused persons. It is also clear from record that version of complaint is not supported by statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as there are material discrepancies. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any material illegality or perversity in the impugned order. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of process of Court or any miscarriage of justice so as to require any interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.2.2021 A. Tripathi