CHANDRAMANI CHAND Vs. BANCHHANIDHI SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The order of the S.D.J.M, Bhadrak refusing to take cognizance on a complaint filed for offences under Sections 147/148/149/324/323 IPC against the petitioners having been reversed by the Sessions Judge, Balasore, the petitioners are in revision before this Court. The complaint arises out of an occurrence of 2-11-81 about which allegations the police had submitted final report after investigation on an F.I.R. being lodged by the opposite parties. The final report was accepted by the S.D.J.M. on 16-10-82. This gist of the final report was that the F.I.R. by the opposite parties was a counter to G.R. Case No. 999/81 in which they were involved under Section 3.02 IPC and that the injuries suffered by them were inflicted by some persons of their own group who could not recognise their own men. The learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance being of the view that the opposite parties have not taken any steps to challenge the acceptance of the final report on 16- 10-82 and that such fact coupled with the evidence led by them in the enquiry under Section 202 Cr. PC as well as the fact that there were no independent witnesses examined led him to opine that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners. In revision, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order holding that there is no invariable rule that independent witnesses are to be exanimate to establish a case and at that stage there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses on the complainantTs side.

(2.) Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has taken extensively through the judgments of both the courts as well as the final report, but however is not able in any way to effectively attack the order of the learned Sessions Judge. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process on a private complaint, the case is to be judged solely on the allegations made in the complaint petitioner and the evidence led by the complainant and it is not within the scope or authority of the Magistrate to make a meticulous or detailed examination of the evidence led to find out the merits and demerits of the prosecution case. At such stage, the burden of the complainant is only to establish a prima facie case and unless there are inherent improbabilities falsifyng the case of the complainant or other such compelling reasons, the complaint cannot be dismissed. As was held in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and other1, the scope of an enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. is extremely limited only to find out the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint on the basis of the materials placed by the complainant only for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out and that such question is to be decided purely from the point of view that the complainant without in any way being influenced by any defence that the accused may have. Some of the considerations which may persuade the Magistrate not to issue process are the inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant and the line of demarcation between a probable conviction of the accused and the prima facie case established by the complainant is extremely thin. Added to this would also be cases where on the face of it the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of some statute. The complainant had examined five witnesses all supporting the injuries received by persons on complainants side. Such injuries have not been disbelieved and indeed the injuries also stand reinforced by medical examination on police requisition. The final report submitted by police is not a substitute for an enquiry under Section 202 Cr. PC and could not form the sole basis to reject the complaint.

(3.) In that view of the matter, the revision has no merit and is dismissed. 1. AIR 1976 Sc 1947.