SHEELA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. filed against the order dated 22nd June, '88, by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners u/ss. 494/109/495/109. IPC.

(2.) MR. S. L. Yadav, counsel for petitioner No. 4 prayed that the case may not be heard by this bench, as by the order of this Court, cases pertaining to him are not to be heard by it.

(3.) CONSIDERED the arguments. It is not necessary for me to go into the details, about the challan-cases pending on the report of Mst. Mamta and her father. Those cases are separate ones, and they would be dealt with according to law and on merits. Here the point is that by the order of this Court in a petition u/s 482, Cr. P. C, the case u/s. 494, IPC was bifurcated, and on the direction of this Court, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the complaint filed u/s. 494, IPC. No doubt, the names of the petitioners were not mentioned in the said complaint dated 28th Jan. '87. But, this complaint was not an exhaustive complaint. The learned Magistrate had to look into the complaint as also the statements of the complainant recorded u/s. 200, and that of the witnesses produced by the complainant in support of the complaint. So along-with the complaint, the statement of the complainant and that of his witnesses are to be kept in mind, and if the Magistrate was satisfied that there was a prima facie case to issue process against the accused persons, and if he was satisfied that it was a fit case on the basis of evidence to take cognizance against the accused persons, then, certainly it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has exceeded his powers. The satisfaction was of the Magistrate. He had to look into the complaint as well as the statements. The fact is that the complaint was lodged at the police station, along with other allegations, whereupon, the police registered a case u/ss. 420 & 498, IPC. By the order of this Court, that case was bifurcated and the complaint was registered, and after registering the statement of the complainant u/s. 200, Cr. P. C, and that of her witnesses u/s. 202, Cr. P. C. were recorded u/s. 202, Cr. P. C. So, this was also an aspect which the Magistrate had to took into. Then, if a case was made out by the statement of the witnesses and the complainant prima facie, then, the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance. The law is well-settled on this point that in the matter of taking cognizance by the Magistrate, the High Court should not interfere in its revisional power, and also the law is very clear that even in a petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. the High Court has to see whether the trial court has abused the process of law, and whether in the interest of justice any case is made out against the petitioners or not. Thus the High Court has to see only a prima facie case. The High Court is not to go into the details of the complaint. In this respect reliance was placed by the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 on the case of Hareram Satpathy Vs. Tikaram Agarwala (1 ). In that case, the SDM has taken cognizance of the offence on a police report, which was challenged by the accused persons in the High Court, whose prayer was accepted by the High Court. Then, the matter went before the Supreme Court, and their Lordships observed in that case as under; "it is crystal clear that under S. 198, Cr. P. C, the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence made out in the police report or in the complaint and there is nothing like taking cognizance of the offenders at that stage. As to who actually the offenders involved in the case might have been, has to be decided by the Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence. In the instant case, the SDM took cognizance of the offence on the police report after taking cognizance of the offence and perusal of the record he appears to have satisfied himself that there were prima facie grounds for issuing process against the respondents. In so doing the Magistrate did not, in our judgment exceed the power vested in him under law. Once the Magistrate has after satisfying himself prima facie that there is sufficient material for proceeding against the accused issued process against him, the High Court cannot go into the matter in exercise of its re-visional jurisdiction which is very limited. As the Magistrate was restricted to finding out whether there was a prima facie case or not for proceeding against the accused and could not enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case and the scope of the re-visional jurisdiction was very limited the High Court could not in our opinion launch on a detailed and meticulous examination of the case on merits. As the High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the SDM, we can not do otherwise than to allow the appeal. "