RAMA SHANKAR GORH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 16.4.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua in Complaint Case No. 341 (c) of 1999. (Tr. No. 1099 of 2000) whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and processes have been issued against the petitioners.

(3.) THE case was that in the month of May, 1997 the complainant was married to Sangita Devi. But when the father of the complainant approached repeatedly for Gauna the same was refused from the side of the petitioners. Against when asked for return of the gifts received on the occasion of marriage, they refused to return the same also. Besides the complainant, Sangita Devi and other witnesses have been examined. At one point of time learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by scrutinising the record holding that the whole story is an improbable one. A revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate had no scope to scrutinise the evidence on records and the order of dismissal was set aside and the matter was sent down for the purpose of further enquiry. After receipt of the order the Magistrate concerned has perused the materials on record and then passed the impugned order. Various submissions have been made to the effect that when further enquiry was asked for the Magistrate concerned ought to have passed order for further evidence of the witnesses but on the same materials he cannot take cognizance. This submission does not have any foundation at all. At the time of taking cognizance the Magistrate concerned has got the limited power to the effect that he is to see whether on the statement recorded and on the materials on record prima facie case has been made out or not. If prima feice case is made out, then cognizance is to be taken. He has done so on scrutinising the evidence on record. I do not find that the learned Magistrate has committed any error of law in passing the impugned order. There is no force in the petition. Hence, the same is rejected.