RAJESH CHANDRA,J. - (1.) THE present revision has been filed against the order dated 28.8.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia in complaint case no. 1251 of 2010 summoning the accused revisionists for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the revisionists argued that the impugned order has been passed in arbitrary manner and without applying its mind. It was also argued that civil suit was pending between the parties but that fact has not been considered by the lower Court. The contention is that the complaint has been filed just to pressurize the revisionist to yield in the civil case.
(2.) I considered over the argument and perused the record. After filing of the complaint by Prem Chandra the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and after considering the evidence available on record, the impugned order was passed. Since there is prima facie evidence against the revisionists for having committed the offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., I am satisfied that the Court concerned has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order. In the case of Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prakash Chandra Bose, 1964 (SCR) 639 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the stage of inquiry 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 Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kanjalgi and others, 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 complainant 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 office which is alleged against accused.
(3.) IN the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others Vs. State of Bihar and another 2002 (44) A.C.C., 168 (S.C.) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the stage of passing order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. searching sufficient ground to convict is not necessary. In view of the above, the revision is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed.;