BEENA Vs. PRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the five accused persons are siblings. The house in question admittedly belonged originally to the mother of the accused. The mother of the accused, it is claimed, had executed an Assignment Deed in favour of the complainant/the petitioner herein. The complainant would allege that even though the title was transferred under the document dt. 9. 9. 1999 the vendor and her children were permitted to continue in the premises - a residential building and the appurtenant land. Such possession, according to the complainant, continued till 1. 6. 2005.

(2.) ON 1. 6. 2005, it is contended that, the accused persons voluntarily surrendered possession of the premises to the complainant. Long later, it is alleged that, the complaint was filed on 18. 7. 05 complaining about forcible eviction of the accused persons by high handed action of the petitioner and her husband along with others. The petitioner's husband, it is alleged, is a person engaged in money lending business. When that complaint from the accused was received by the police, the parties were allegedly called to the police station. The complainant would aver that the police explained that this was a civil dispute and the police cannot take any action in the matter.

(3.) I have been taken through the impugned order in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced detailed arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the sworn statements of the witnesses as well as the complaint. Having gone through all these relevant inputs, I must express my opinion that the conclusion of the court below does not appear to be suffering from any gross error, much less perversity. At the stage of Section 203/204 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate has a very sublime duty to perform. The jurisdiction of the criminal court to consider the materials available before it varies from stage to stage. At the stage of section 203/204 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate should concern himself with the short question whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed. The exercise of weighing the evidence in golden scales is not to be undertaken at this stage and must necessarily be postponed to the later stages of the trial. But the limited nature of jurisdiction does not at all oblige the court to swallow whatever assertions are made by the complainant and his interested witnesses at the stage of taking cognizance. Alert application of mind is required though not a meticulous appreciation and evaluation of the data placed. At the threshold the court has the duty to show the door to a vexatious complainant. At the same time, it has the duty to ensure that a bonafide complainant is given the fuller opportunity to adduce better and more elaborate evidence. Conscious of the twin responsibilities, the sublime function under Section 203/204 has to be undertaken by any court.