AMIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer is made in this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. by Amit, the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 06.01.2011 (Annexure P-16) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal as also the order dated 09.07.2011 (Annexure P-17) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal in Crl. Complaint No. 999 dated 11.12.2009 titled as 'Amit v. Ishwar and others' for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 325, 326 354, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to Annexures P-1 to P-4, the MLRs of Amit Kumar, Raghubir Singh, Ranvir and Geeta respectively. According to him, Amit Kumar remained hospitalized for five days on account of the injuries suffered in the incident while Raghubeer Singh and Ranvir remained hospitalized for four and two days respectively. According to him, these four persons suffered injuries in the incident.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the scope of enquiry in the complaint at the stage of summoning under sections 203 and 204 Cr. P. C. is very limited. According to him, the courts were not justified in undertaking a detailed analysis of the evidence to find out if that was sufficient for conviction of the accused. He has further submitted that there is no requirement of law for the complainant to lead all the evidence with him at the time of preliminary enquiry. He has placed reliance on some decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The first is Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan and anothers, 1980 AIR(SC) 1780. It has been laid down in this decision that in the preliminary enquiry under sections 203 and 204 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate has to see prima-facie evidence in support of charges and he would be held to have exceeded his jurisdiction if he weighed the evidence meticulously. The other case cited before me is Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 AIR(SC) 1734. It has been laid down in this decision that in a case where complaint is sent to police for investigation and the police reports that the complaint was false, the Magistrate could still take cognizance on the basis of material on record because the Magistrate has to be satisfied about their being sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The third case cited before me as Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary and others, 2011 AIR(SC) 1103. It has been laid down in this decision that the Magistrate while issuing process is not to take into account the possible defence, the accused may have to the case set up by the complainant because that matter has to be left to be decided at the appropriate stage.