RAJESH CHANDRA J. - (1.) THIS application has been moved under Section 482 Cr.PC. for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no.1241/09. Tej Bajadur Sharma Vs. Shoaib & Others, under Sections 323, 452.504.506, 379 IPC. PS Chilua Tall, District Gorakhpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate III, Gorakhpur. As an interim measure, it has been prayed that the proceedings of the aforesaid case may be stayed till the pendency of the present application. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned A.G.A. and also perused the papers as have been filed with the application. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that a false complaint has been filed against the applicants just to harass them and in fact no such incident had taken place as has been alleged by the opposite party no. 2.
(2.) IT has further been argued that the applicant no.2 Smt.Alimun Nisha had filed a complaint case against opposite party no.2 and three others on 10.4.09 for the offences under Sections 452, 504, 506, 323, 314IPC in which the accused were summoned by the court on 12.5.09. As a counter blast to this complaint, opposite party no.2 Tej Bahadur submitted a false complaint in the court of J.M.IIIrd, Gorakhpur in which the accused applicants have been summoned for the offences under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 379 IPC. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that since the present case has been filed as a counter blast, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand argued that the order summoning the accused-applicants has been passed by the Magistrate on the basis of evidence recorded under Section 200, 202 Cr.PC. & there is nothing illegal in it. I considered over the respective arguments. It is a settled legal position that at the stage of passing order under Sections 203 or 204 Cr.P.C, only a prima case has to be seen and not whether the evidence as adduced will result in conviction of the accused persons. In the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. State of West Bengal and another, 1973 (10) ACC 181 (SC) while considering the scheme of sections 200, 203 Cr.PC., it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Section 203 Cr.PC. does not say that a regular trial for adjudging the truth or otherwise of the accusations made against the accused should take place at that stage. 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 no sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint.
(3.) IN the case of Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prakash Chandra Bose, 1964 (1) SCR 639 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the stage of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction. Again in the case of Smt. Nagwwa V. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and other, 1976 (1) ACC 225 (S.C.) while considering the scope of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex court has held that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the basis of 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 complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In that case, it has been held by way of illustration that the order of Magistrate issuing process can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value made out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against accused.;