G. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. filed against the order dated 22nd June, '88, by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners u/ss. 494/109/495/109. IPC.
(2.) MR. S. L. Yadav, counsel for petitioner No. 4 prayed that the case may not be heard by this bench, as by the order of this Court, cases pertaining to him are not to be heard by it. Petitioner No. 4 Prahlad to whom, Mr. Yadav represents, is also represented by Mr. Shital Das advocate, and also the petition on behalf of Prahlad petitioner, has been filed by Mr. Shital Das. So, as petitioner Prahlad is properly represented by Mr. Shital Das, there is no question of sending the case to other bench. Mr. Shital Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Mst. Mamta was married to Rajesh on 28th June, '82. Then, the allegation of Mst. Mamta is that on 16th Sept. , '86, she was beaten up by Rajesh and her in-laws and then thrown out of the house. She came back to her father's house, and thereafter, came to know that on 15th Sept, '86' Rajesh had married one Asha Mathur in court. So, a report was lodged in the police on 17th Sept. , '86 u/s 498, IPC. On this report the police investigated the case and submitted a challan which is said to be pending in the trial court. It was further contended that on 23rd Sept, 86 another report was submitted in the police, and a case u/s, 420, 494 & 495 IPC. was registered and the matter was investigated. A challan was submitted on that report also against Rajesh and the present petitioners. A petition u/s 482, Cr. P. C. was also moved by the petitioners in this Court, which was decided on 11th Dec, '87, whereby the case u/s 494, IPC being non cognizable offence, was bifurcated from that challan. Thus, in view of the order of this Court, while bifurcating the case u/s. 494, IPC the learned Magistrate proceeded with the complaint u/s. 494 IPC, which was filed by Mst. Mamta on 28th Jan, '87. The learned Magistrate proceeded with that complaint, recorded the statement of Mst. Mamta u/s. 2c0 and that of her witnesses, u/s, 202, Cr. P. C. After perusing the statements of the complainant and her witnesses, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners u/ss. 494/109 and u/ss. 495/109, IPC, which has been challenged in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners during arguments, referred to the statement of Mst. Mamta which was recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr. P. C. while investigating the Flrs lodged by her or by her father. The statement of Mst. Mamta recorded in another challan case was also brought to my notice, and it was argued after reading all these statements that Mst. Mamta has not stated a single word about the petitioners in those statements, and that she has not stated that these petitioners had abated Rajesh to contact another marriage with Asha Mathur. So this argument was that there is no prima facie case against these petitioners proving that they had any hand in Rajesh's marriage with Asha or that they had abated Rajesh for the second marriage. It was also argued that there is no evidence that the petitioners had any knowledge about the second marriage or that they had concealed the first marriage of Mst. Mamta with Rajesh. Thus, the crux of his entire argument was that there is no prima facie case, and specially, it was argued that in the complaint dated 28th Jan. , '87, these petitioners have not been named even. . So, according to him the learned Magistrate has committed error in taking cognizance against them. The learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 argued that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance after satisfying himself that there was a prima facie case for summoning the accused person, and that no revision lies against an order of taking cognizance. It was also argued by him that even in a petition u/s 482 Cr. P. C the High Court should not interfere, if there is a prima facie case, who further added that if the learned Magistrate was satisfied with the averments and the evidence of the complainant that there was some substance in the summoning of the accused persons, the High Court should not interfere.
(3.) CONSIDERED the arguments. It is not necessary for me to go into the details, about the challan-cases pending on the report of Mst. Mamta and her father. Those cases are separate ones, and they would be dealt with according to law and on merits. Here the point is that by the order of this Court in a petition u/s 482, Cr. P. C, the case u/s. 494, IPC was bifurcated, and on the direction of this Court, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the complaint filed u/s. 494, IPC. No doubt, the names of the petitioners were not mentioned in the said complaint dated 28th Jan. '87. But, this complaint was not an exhaustive complaint. The learned Magistrate had to look into the complaint as also the statements of the complainant recorded u/s. 200, and that of the witnesses produced by the complainant in support of the complaint. So along-with the complaint, the statement of the complainant and that of his witnesses are to be kept in mind, and if the Magistrate was satisfied that there was a prima facie case to issue process against the accused persons, and if he was satisfied that it was a fit case on the basis of evidence to take cognizance against the accused persons, then, certainly it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has exceeded his powers. The satisfaction was of the Magistrate. He had to look into the complaint as well as the statements. The fact is that the complaint was lodged at the police station, along with other allegations, whereupon, the police registered a case u/ss. 420 & 498, IPC. By the order of this Court, that case was bifurcated and the complaint was registered, and after registering the statement of the complainant u/s. 200, Cr. P. C, and that of her witnesses u/s. 202, Cr. P. C. were recorded u/s. 202, Cr. P. C. So, this was also an aspect which the Magistrate had to took into. Then, if a case was made out by the statement of the witnesses and the complainant prima facie, then, the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance. The law is well-settled on this point that in the matter of taking cognizance by the Magistrate, the High Court should not interfere in its revisional power, and also the law is very clear that even in a petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. the High Court has to see whether the trial court has abused the process of law, and whether in the interest of justice any case is made out against the petitioners or not. Thus the High Court has to see only a prima facie case. The High Court is not to go into the details of the complaint. In this respect reliance was placed by the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 on the case of Hareram Satpathy Vs. Tikaram Agarwala (1 ). In that case, the SDM has taken cognizance of the offence on a police report, which was challenged by the accused persons in the High Court, whose prayer was accepted by the High Court. Then, the matter went before the Supreme Court, and their Lordships observed in that case as under; "it is crystal clear that under S. 198, Cr. P. C, the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence made out in the police report or in the complaint and there is nothing like taking cognizance of the offenders at that stage. As to who actually the offenders involved in the case might have been, has to be decided by the Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence. In the instant case, the SDM took cognizance of the offence on the police report after taking cognizance of the offence and perusal of the record he appears to have satisfied himself that there were prima facie grounds for issuing process against the respondents. In so doing the Magistrate did not, in our judgment exceed the power vested in him under law. Once the Magistrate has after satisfying himself prima facie that there is sufficient material for proceeding against the accused issued process against him, the High Court cannot go into the matter in exercise of its re-visional jurisdiction which is very limited. As the Magistrate was restricted to finding out whether there was a prima facie case or not for proceeding against the accused and could not enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case and the scope of the re-visional jurisdiction was very limited the High Court could not in our opinion launch on a detailed and meticulous examination of the case on merits. As the High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the SDM, we can not do otherwise than to allow the appeal. " In the case of Smt. Nagawwa vs. V. S. Konjalgi (2), it was observed as under: "at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the evidence province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case nor can the High Court go into this matter in its re-visional juris-diction which is a very limited one. The scope of the inquiry u/s. 202. is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the com-plaint- (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out, and (iii) 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. In fact, the proceedings u/s. 202 the accused has got absolutely no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. It is true that in coming to a decision as to whether a process should be issued, the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the fact of the complaint or to the evidence led by the complainant in (illegible) to be a very thin line of demarcation between a probability of conviction of the accused and establishment of a prima facie case against him. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even the Supreme Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. " In J. P. Sharma vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (3), the allegation against the accused person was that they illegally imported beef-tallow. The Magistrate accepted the complaint and issued process against the accused persons. Against that cognizance, the accused persons moved the High Court u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the order taking cognizance and for dismissing the complaint. The matter went upto Supreme Court, and their Lordships held : "the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint under its extraordinary jurisdiction. As can be seen contravention of condition of a licence or any order made under the Act is a penal offence and hence punish-able under the Act. The grounds upon which the High Court Judge seems to have quashed the complaint in the instant case was the subsequent report by the CBI, which had not yet been proved and considered in the background of the allegations made and secondly that some of the parties alleged to be in the conspiracy were not made parties. These are no grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings where on prima facie being satisfied the Magistrate had taken cognizance. Taking all the allegations in the complaint to be true, without adding or subtracting anything, at this stage, it cannot be said that no prima facie case for trial had been made out. That is the limit of the power to be exercised by the High Court u/s 482, Cr. P. C. The High Court in the instant case has exceeded that jurisdiction. The question at this stage is not whether there was any truth in the allegations made but the question is whether on the basis of the allegations a cognizable offence or offences had been alleged to have been committed The facts subsequently found out to prove the truth or otherwise on the allegation is not a ground on the basis of which the complaint can be quashed, The truth or otherwise of the allegation made in the complaint would be investigated at the time of the trial. " ;