HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 31st March, 2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 43 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khunti dismissed the complaint petition under Sections 364/386/ 323/347/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the filing of this application are that on 2 -6 -2002 the petitioner, who is complainant of complaint case No. 43 of 2002, filed a complaint case stating inter alia therein that he along with his son Shankar Mahto went to village Mal -sining and purchased two ox for Rs. 9.500.00 . It is further stated that on the same day one Manoj Kumar Akela @ Chhedi forced him to see the girls for marriage of his son. The complainant and his son found a girl suitable for marriage with Shankar Mahto, then accused No. 1 to 6 Chamru Sao, Dhunuwa Sao Paras Sao., Chhedi @ Manoj Kumar Akela, Baiju Sao and Chhedi Sao for the purpose of marriage, forced the petitioner and his son to raise Panch -Panch (Certain rituals for arrangement of marriage), but complainant somehow managed to prolong the matter and return to the village. But on 9 -6 -2002 at 2.00 AM in night, one Ramchandra Mahto took petitioner and Shankar Mahto on gun point to panchayat school where 25 -30 men assaulted, abused and threatened them to kill and the aforesaid accused persons asked the petitioner -complainant to return 12.000.00 which they have spent on marriage arrangement and thereafter the complainant petitioner and his son were taken to village Malasiring where again they were assaulted and abused and at about 6.00 AM in panchayat it was decided to implicate them in dowry case and thereby they were forced to sign a forged document relating to demand of dowry. On 11 -6 -2002 the complainant -petitioner was forced on gun point to go with Ishwar Mahto to his village to arrange money and thereafter complainant mortgaged his land and returned with Rajendra Ram, Pandu Mahto, Devu Mahto and Ishwar Mahto to village Malasiring where in front of panchayat, money was received by Chunnuwa Sao and Janak Sao. When complainant -petitioner wanted to settle marriage of his son with the daughter of Chamru Sao, then accused persons refused marriage of the daughter of Chamru Sao and abused and threatened them to kill all this family members if the complainant informs the police. On 12 -6 -2002 complainant and his son Shankar Sao were released as the accused persons got money which they spent during settlement of marriage. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that learned Court below has committed error of law in dismissing the complaint. It was further poifited out that the learned Court below has dismissed the complaint after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC. on the ground that all the witnesses have not been produced. Another ground for dismissal of the complaint petition is that no independent witness has been examined in inquiry. The another ground for dismissal of complaint petition is that the complainant mortgaged his land to collect money but he has not given details of the land and to whom the land has been mortgaged by the complainant. Witnesses cited in the complainant petition have not been examined.
(3.) IN this connection, it was submitted that so far as non -examination of witnesses is concerned, it is not necessary that at the enquiry stage all such witnesses should be examined and in this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon 2001 Cr LJ 1315, wherein it has been held that it is not necessary for the complainant to produce all witnesses in an enquiry. Reliance was also placed upon 1988 Cr LJ 199, wherein same principle has been laid down that it is not necessary to produce all the witnesses in enquiry. It was also pointed out that when according to principle laid down there is no necessity to produce all witnesses for examination, then at this stage it cannot be seen whether witness is competent or not because it is an enquiry and not a trial. It was further submitted that at the present moment learned Magistrate has got only to see whether a prima facie case is made out or not and since two, witnesses have been examined and from examination of these two witnesses a prima facie case is made out and, therefore, Magistrate was duty bound to issue process under Sec.204, Cr PC.;