- (1.) 5/ 16.5.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONERS have filed this application for quashing the order dated 7.4.2011 passed by Sri A. K. Dubey, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur, in C/1 Case No. 4132 of 2010 whereby, the prima facie case has been found against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323, 306, 304 B, 498A and 506 of the I.P.C and the processes have been ordered to be issued against the petitioners. It appears that the complaint case was filed by the informant, Raj Kishore Mandal who is Opposite Party No. 2 in this writ application, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur which was registered as C/1 Case No. 4132 of 2010, wherein, it is alleged that the petitioners being the husband and his family members had subjected the daughter of the complainant to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry and had committed her dowry death by burning. It further appears from the impugned order that the complainant had supported the complaint case, in his statement recorded on Solemn Affirmation and three witnesses were examined in the enquiry stage, who had also supported the case, on the basis of which, the Court below found the prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 306, 304B, 498A and 506 of the I.P.C and has ordered for issuance of process against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the statement of the girl was recorded while she was injured, on the basis of which, Potka P.S. Case No.88 of 2010 corresponding to G.R Case No. 3183 of 2010 for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C was instituted, wherein, the deceased lady had made the allegation that one Nikunj Mandal had burnt her and accordingly, the said case was instituted against the said Nikunj Mandal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that for the same occurrence, a false case has been instituted against the petitioners by the father of the deceased and accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained in eyes of law. -2-
(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon going through the record, I find that though the subsequent complaint case has been lodged for the same occurrence, but a totally different version about the prosecution case has been given in the said complaint case. On the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded on S.A and the witnesses examined by the Court below in the enquiry stage, the prima facie case has been found by the Court below against the petitioners. At this stage the Court below had no occasion to look into the F.I.R. in Potka P.S. Case No.88 of 2010 corresponding to G.R Case No. 3183 of 2010, or the materials relating to the said case. It is well settled principle of law that at this stage, the Magistrate is required to look into the materials of the complaint case only and if the offence is made out on the basis of the material brought on record in the enquiry stage, the accused has to be summoned to face the trial. The impugned order shows that the Magistrate has taken into consideration the allegations in the complaint case as well as the statements of the complainant on S.A and the witnesses examined in the enquiry stage, and found that the prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners and has ordered for issuance of process against the petitioners.;