(1.) The Petitioners had been summoned by the then II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mathura, under Ss. 455 and 380, Indian Penal Code , vide order dated 4 -9 -1981 in pursuance of a complaint filed by the opposite party, the certified copy of that order is on the record. The Magistrate has observed that on perusal of the statement under Ss. 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, a prima facie case against the Petitioners under Sec. 455, Indian Penal Code and Sec. 380 Indian Penal Code is borne out. The complaint is Annexure 'A' to the petition. It has been filed under Sec. 395, Indian Penal Code . The incident is alleged to be of 11 -2 -1981 at about 5 P. M. It has been stated in the complaint that the Petitioners accompanied by labourers and police personnel's forcibly entered the quarter of the complainant, caught hold of her two sons and house hold articles were removed from the quarter of the complainant and a loot of property worth Rs. 70,000/ - was committed.
(2.) It is alleged by the Petitioners that, firstly, any prima facie case is not made out and the Magistrate could have sifted the evidence, and, secondly, the complainant did not examine all the prosecution witnesses and the complaint being under Sec. 395 Indian Penal Code , the Petitioners should not have been summoned, without compliance of proviso to Sec. 202(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, when the complaint happened to be under Sec. 395, Indian Penal Code and such mandatory provision has been violated. Annexure 'B' is the list of the prosecution witnesses furnished by the complainant. It would be found that some of the witnesses figuring in that list were not produced and examined.
(3.) The first point urged is that no prima facie case is made out on the scrutiny of the entire evidence that was led, after carrying a careful sifting of the evidence, and the complaint itself is to be quashed. So far as that submission is concerned, the law is well settled. While exercising inherent powers this Court does not function as a court of trial. The crux of the matter is whether the complaint discloses an offence. So far as that aspect goes, a perusal of the complaint (Annexure 'A') would show that it does disclose an offence. The complainant also produced a number of witnesses in support of the complaint. When that is the position, inherent powers cannot be invoked and exercised. It is for the Magistrate, seized of the case, who has to decide whether any prima facie case for summoning the accused persons is made out. In such view of the matter, the entire proceedings in pursuance of the complaint, as well as the complaint cannot be quashed.