Hemant Kumar Verma v. Mangliram and others), under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:188512 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16302 of 2024 Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against order dated 06.04.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist Aonla, District Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 646 of 2022 (Hemant Kumar Verma Vs. Mangliram and others), under Section 452, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly, whereby the complaint of applicant has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case is made out against the private opposite parties. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have opposed the application and submitted that the there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and thus, no case for interference is made out. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C., which read as under :- Section 203 Cr.P.C. "Dismissal of complaint- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing," Section 204 Cr.P.C. "204.Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be- (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction." 7. Thus, it is clear that as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings with regard to the complaint case after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding exists and he may dismiss the complaint. It is well settled that if a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it show that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. What the Magistrate had to determine at the stage of issue of process was not the correctness of the probability or improbability of individual items of evidence on disputable grounds, but the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case on the assumption that what was stated could be true unless the prosecution allegations were so fantastic that they could not reasonably be held to be true. 8. In S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2001 SC 2960, while examining the scope of section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 15,16 and 17 has held as under : "15. In case of a complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The words 'sufficient ground' used under Section 202 have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. 16. This Court in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and others, (1993)(3)SCC 753), in para 22, referring to scheme of Sections 200-203 of Cr.P.C. has explained that "The section does not say that a regular trial of adjudging truth or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage, for, such a person can be called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has been issued and he is on trial. Section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials there is in his judgment not sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose (1964 (1)SCR 639) where dismissal of a complaint by the Magistrate at the stage of Section 2092 inquiry was set aside, this Court laid down that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed (p.653) that where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case." 17. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kongalgi (1976(3) SCC 736) this Court dealing with the scope of inquiry under Section 202 has stated that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (C) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. It is also indicated by way of illustration in which cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process can be quashed on such case being "where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused." 9. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the opposite party no.3 is wife of applicant and opposite no.2 and 4 are her father and mother and opposite party no.5 and 6 are brothers of opposite party no.3. In his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that his marriage with opposite party no.3 has taken place in the year 2014 but seven years back she has left him. He has further alleged that on 15.06.2022, the opposite party no.2 to 7 came at applicant's home and opposite party no.2 Mangli Ram pressurized the complainant to transfer 10 bighas land in the name of opposite party no.3 Bevi Kumari and when he refused, he was assaulted by the applicants and they have forcibly took away Rs.50,000/- from his house. It is apparent from the record that there is matrimonial dispute between applicant and his wife opposite party no.3 Bevi Kumari. The allegation that the wife of applicant along with her father, mother and brothers would have indulged in such incident appears quite improbable. Further, merely a vague allegation has been made that the opposite parties did marpeet with complainant and his mother. There is noting to show that complainant and his mother has sustained any injury. The trial Court has considered entire facts and material on record in accordance with law and dismissed the complaint. There is no such patent illegality or abuse of process of Court so as to require any interference by this Court. 10. Considering the entire facts including averments of complainant, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 06.04.2014, by which complaint has been dismissed, is suffering from any illegality or perversity. There is nothing to indicate that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. It is well settled that inherent powers have to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure ends of justice. These powers cannot be exercised to interfere with a just order passed on the basis of evidence and in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is Dismissed. Order Date :- 2.12.2024 RKM
Arguments
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has lodged the aforesaid complaint against the opposite party nos.2 to 6 and thereafter the opposite party no.2 to 6 were summoned by the Judicial Magistrate-Ist Aonla, District Bareilly vide order dated 08.12.2022. The private opposite parties have preferred a revision against order dated 08.12.2022, which was allowed by the Session Court vide order dated 20.10.2023 and matter was remanded back to the trial Court. Thereafter, the complaint of the applicant has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.04.2024. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. There are clear allegations against opposite party no.2 to 6 that they have assaulted the applicant and his mother and forcibly took away Rs.50,000/- from his house. That version was supported by the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a