S.K.Kaul - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
(2.) THE opposite party No. 2 moved a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. THE allegations were that he was in possession of house No. 336/80, on the basis of sale executed in his favour by the custodian on 7-4-1972. On account of the cospiracy of the Mohalla people and the offcers of the Sunni Waqf Board, and in order to harass the complainant, the Sunni Waqf Board has issued a notice on 8-2-1979 to him about which he had given a reply. Another notice was sent on 28-3-1979. Ultimately Shri Mohammad Yunus Inspector of Sunni Waqf Board in the Mohalla, defamed the complainant by stating that he had taken unauthorised possession over Waqf property. On account of this proclamation of the Inspector, the complainant had been defamed and he was made to lose prestige in the eye of the Mohalla people. On this account a prayer was made that the Magistrate may take cognizance. THE Magistrate took evidence under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and thereafter summoned the petitioners under Section 203 CrPC. By means of this petition the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner were that on the basis of facts mentioned in the complaint there was no disclosure of ingredients on the basis of which offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code could be said to have been made out. THE learned counsel for the opposite party said that it was not the complaint alone which should be the basis for a Magistrate to take cognizance. Indeed the Magistrate on recording evidence under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC had taken cognizance and thereafter had summoned the accused under Section 203 CrPC, therefore, this was not a fit case in which interference under Section 482 CrPC is called for. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In my view this petition is to be allowed. This Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, appears to have no idea about criminal matters. It was his duty to have perused the complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and it was only when there was some semblance of an offence having been committed under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code that he should have proceeded further in the matter of taking evidence both under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The cognizance starts from the complaint, and if the complaint does not disclose facts which could constitute an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, no action could be taken on such complaint. A person is not allowed to add facts which would amount to an amendment of the complaint, on the basis of which an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code could be said to have beed made out. If this is allowed, then it would mean just giving a petition to a Criminal Court that action should be taken against such a person and thereafter it should be by way of evidence that facts constituting such offence could be detailed Boot is on the other leg. Actually there has to be a mention of facts constituting the offence. Minute details, of course, need not be there, but there have to be details of the substance of facts on the basis of which an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code could be said to have been made out. Statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC are only in the nature of evidence supporting the allegations made in a complaint. There have to be allegations made in the complaint however minute which must go to show that an offence has been committed and in the absence of such materials in the complaint itself, further action obviously is not called for, muchless in the shape of evidence. The object of Section 482 CrPC is not only to stop the abuse of process of law but also to put a stop to harassment that can be caused by one person to another, by moving a criminal proceeding on frivolous allegations. There can, therefore, be no doubt that on the basis of the complaint no action was called for, for the simple reason that even if the complaint is taken to be true in its entirety, the proclamation by the Inspector that somebody was in unauthorised possession of Waqf property cannot be termed to be defamation of that person.
(3.) IN that view of the matter, I would allow the petition and quash the proceedings before the Magistrate concerned. Petition allowed.;