KOMPELLA AMMANNA NARASIMHA SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. JOSYALA RAMALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, is by accused in Preliminary Register Case No. 11 of 1969 on the file of Additional Judicial ist Class Magistrate, Narsapur to quash the order committing him to the Court of Sessions for trial for offences under sections 493 and 496, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) A private complaint was filed by P. W.1 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur against the accused for offences under sections 493 and 496, Indian Penal Code, on the following grounds. The complainant Josyula Ramalakshmi was staying in the house of one Malapaka Santhamma at Gumparru opposite the house of accused and became acquainted with the accused and his family. The accused was then studying at Y.N. College, Narsapur. Thereafter while the complainant was undergoing training in the industrial training centre at Sakhimetipalli, the accused used to visit her and expressing his desire to marry her invited her to have sexual intercourse with him. She resisted the same stating that unless he married her she would not yield to such intercourse. The accused agreed to marry her and took her to the house of a Purohit P.W. 6 at Narsapur and went through the ceremony of the marrige on the night of 12th March, 1967, at about 2-30 A.M., and thereafter she and the accused lived for some time as man and wife at Narsapur in the houses of Sri Y. Subrahmanyam, Vakil at Narsapur and one V. Subbarao, Ex. principal, Y. N. College, Narsapur, respectively, when she became pregnant, the accused on or about 28th April, 1969, with a view to procure abortion, took her to the hospital of Dr. P. Subrahmanyam, but she refused to undergo the operation and they continued to live as husband and wife till the second week of June, 1969. By the middle of June, 1969, she learnt that the father of the accused was making arrangements to fix a bride for the accused and the marraige would take place between the accused and the would be bride, and when she questioned accused about it, he stated that the marriage that took place in the house of P.W. & was only a (secret marriage) and is not valid that he is now free to marry any girl and ceased to visit the complainant thereafter. On 6th July, 1969, the complainant took a number of persons to the house of the accused to raise a dispute with the father of the accused, but the accused was not allowed to come out of the house and hence the complaint is filed. In support of this case the complainant had examined 8 witnesses including herself as P.W.1. On a consideration of the evidence, the Magistrate framed changes under section 493 and 496, Indian Penal Code, and committed the accused to take his trial in the Court of the Sessions. Hence this petition under section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash that committal.

(3.) Under section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, committal can be quashed only by the High Court and only on a point of law. The point of law urged is that there is not even a prima facie case made out in the complaint or by the witnesses and this is a fatal flaw in the prosecution case as it does not conform to the provisions of section 209, Criminal Procedure Code, warranting a committal. Under section 209, Criminal Procedure Code, what the Magistrate has to see is whether on the evidence adduced, there are sufficient grounds for committing the accused. He cannot be considered to be a recording machine for recording the evidence and a post office or a conduit pipe for recording the evidence and a post office or a conduit pipe for transmitting it to the Sessions Court. As pointed out in Alamohan Das v. State of West Bengal, the Magistrate holding an enquiry preparatory to commitment is not intended to act merely as a recording machine but he is entitled to sift and weigh the material on record only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction but if there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit it is his duty to discharge the accused. On the other hand if there is some evidence on which a conviction may reasonably be based he must commit the case. The Magistrate at that stage has no power to evaluate the evidence for satisfying himself as to the guilt of the accused. It is therefore, to be seen whether a prima facie case for the offence under section 493 and 496 has been made out in this case.