BHAGYALAXMIN ALIAS LAXMI CHUNDI Vs. PATA KRUSHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court in revision seeking reversal of the order passed by the S. D. J. M. refusing to take cognisance and issue process against the opp. party Under Section 376/406, IPC, on the complaint filed by her. lt was her case that she was called by the opp. party to his house on the pretext of his wife having called her but reaching there she found the wife of the opp party to be absent. The opp. party forcibly raped her and thereafter took her to the hospital on the apprehension of she hiving conceived and thereafter again raped her. The contact between the parties continued the opp. party having promised the petitioner to marry her and it is alleged that the opp. party thereafter persuaded the petitioner to bring Rs. 2,000/ - and a necklace. Information lodged by the father of the petitioner and police rescued the petitioner from the house of the opp. party. It was the further complaint case that the petitioner and the opp. party had been to the Registrar of Marriages, but the wife of the opp. party having filed a suit, the registration could not take place. The petitioner was examined by the learned Magistrate Under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and in the enquiry Under Section 202, Cr. P. C. seven witnesses were examined including the parents of the petitioner. In her staternent the petitioner stated that about a year back the opp. parry had called her in the manner as alleged in the complaint petition and committed the offence. She also otherwise corroborated her statement in the complaint petition. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the complaint petition, the statement of the petitioner and the statements of the witnesses held the petitioner to be a minor on the date of filing of the complaint but disbelieved the story as alleged by her and finding no prima facie case having been made out Under Section 376/406 IPC refused to proceed against the opp party.

(2.) LAW is far too well settled now that at the time of taking cognizance and issuing process on a complaint made before the Magistrate, the accused has no locus standi and that the only jurisdiction of the Magistrate is to examine the case from the point of view of the complainant as to whether a prima facie case has been made out so as to set in motion the criminal process against the accused. He has to examine the statement of the complainant and the evidence of the witnesses if an enquiry is held, but not with a view to be satisfied that on such evidence and statements, a conviction must result. The only scope of examination at that stage is as to the existence of a prima facie case which would largely depend on the nature of the allegations made. If however on the acceptance of the complainant's case as a whole no case is made out, which concept shall take within it the concept of the complainant's case as developed being thoroughly absurd or inherently improbable, no prima facia case must be taken to have been made out and hence the Court would be justified in refusing to issue process. So far as the present case is concerned, admittedly the petitioner being a minor, her consent if any was immaterial with regard to an offence Under Section 376, IPC. The learned Magistrate himself found that the statement of the petitioner was in consonance with the story given by her in the complaint petition except slight differences here and there. He however rejected the complaint case on the following grounds':

(3.) IN that view of the matter, the order dated 27 -10 -1990 in Case No ICC 27 of 1990 of the S. D. J M., Sonepur is set aside and the case is. remanded to him. The Magistrate is directed to issue process against the opp. party and proceed in accordance with low.