High Court

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has filed complaint against opposite party nos.2 to 10 making allegations that they have filed forged stay order of Civil Court before the Revenue authorities and got prepared a forged revenue map by the Revenue authorities and a pathway (chakroad) was made in the revenue land of applicant. It was submitted that the allegations made by complaint disclose a prima-facie offence but the complaint was dismissed by learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 29.01.2019. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against order dated 29.01.2019, which was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Mau vide order dated

11.03.2022 and the order dated 29.01.2019 was set aside and matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate to pass an order afresh in the light of observations made therein. Learned counsel submitted that learned Magistrate has not considered the observations made by the Session Court in revision and again the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 23.01.2025. Learned counsel has referred the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in criminal revision and submitted that the observations of the Session Court were not complied in letter and spirit. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that a prima-facie case is made out and thus the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no material illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

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 exist 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 shows 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.

8. 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.

9. In S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2001 SC 12960 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."

10. Considering above-stated position of law, in the instant matter it appears that main allegation of complainant is that he is a co- tenure holder of land Gata No.158 area 0.4080 hectare and that the private opposite parties, in connivance with revenue officials, have filed forged stay orders of Civil Court before the Revenue authorities and that a forged revenue map was got prepared. It was further alleged that on the basis of said facts, a pathway (chakroad) was made on the bhumidhari land of applicant. It is apparent that essentially dispute relates to revenue documents. The allegation that forged revenue map was got prepared, can not be accepted unless any such finding is given by the concerned Revenue authorities. No specific detail of any forged stay order has been disclosed. It may also be mentioned that the impugned complaint was filed against nine persons without assigning any specific role and merely it was alleged that they have got prepared the forged revenue documents. Learned Magistrate has considered the facts of the matter in correct perspective and complaint was dismissed by a reasoned order. There is no material illegality in the impugned order. Essentially, the dispute appears to be of civil nature. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice, so as to require any interference by this Court by invoking extraordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 'SP'/-

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has filed complaint against opposite party nos.2 to 10 making allegations that they have filed forged stay order of Civil Court before the Revenue authorities and got prepared a forged revenue map by the Revenue authorities and a pathway (chakroad) was made in the revenue land of applicant. It was submitted that the allegations made by complaint disclose a prima-facie offence but the complaint was dismissed by learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 29.01.2019. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against order dated 29.01.2019, which was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Mau vide order dated

11.03.2022 and the order dated 29.01.2019 was set aside and matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate to pass an order afresh in the light of observations made therein. Learned counsel submitted that learned Magistrate has not considered the observations made by the Session Court in revision and again the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 23.01.2025. Learned counsel has referred the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in criminal revision and submitted that the observations of the Session Court were not complied in letter and spirit. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that a prima-facie case is made out and thus the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no material illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

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 exist 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 shows 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.

8. 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.

9. In S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2001 SC 12960 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."

10. Considering above-stated position of law, in the instant matter it appears that main allegation of complainant is that he is a co- tenure holder of land Gata No.158 area 0.4080 hectare and that the private opposite parties, in connivance with revenue officials, have filed forged stay orders of Civil Court before the Revenue authorities and that a forged revenue map was got prepared. It was further alleged that on the basis of said facts, a pathway (chakroad) was made on the bhumidhari land of applicant. It is apparent that essentially dispute relates to revenue documents. The allegation that forged revenue map was got prepared, can not be accepted unless any such finding is given by the concerned Revenue authorities. No specific detail of any forged stay order has been disclosed. It may also be mentioned that the impugned complaint was filed against nine persons without assigning any specific role and merely it was alleged that they have got prepared the forged revenue documents. Learned Magistrate has considered the facts of the matter in correct perspective and complaint was dismissed by a reasoned order. There is no material illegality in the impugned order. Essentially, the dispute appears to be of civil nature. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice, so as to require any interference by this Court by invoking extraordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 'SP'/-