No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2554 of 2021 & Anr. v. Chintamani) & Ors.

complaint to the District Magistrate, and thereafter first information report of this case was registered on 27.03.2017 for offences under section 323, 504 IPC and section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(gha) of SC/ST Act.

4. After investigation, police have submitted final report. The complainant has preferred a protest petition against the final report, which was registered as complaint case. Thereafter, the complainant was examined under section 200 CrPC and two witnesses, namely, PW 1 Maniram and PW 2 Geeta Devi were examined under section 202 CrPC. After hearing, the learned Special Judge passed summoning order dated 13.01.2020 summoning the appellants. This order dated 13.01.2020 is being impugned in the present appeal.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned summoning order has been passed in mechanical manner without considering the material on record. The alleged incident has been shown of

31.12.2016 and first information report was lodged on 27.03.2017. After thorough investigation, police did not find any case and thus, final Report was submitted. It has further been submitted that the complainant of the case has preferred a protest petition against the final Report, which was registered by the Court below as a complaint case and after examining the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., impugned summoning order has been passed. Learned counsel submitted that there were no such allegations that the conclusions arrived at during investigation were false or the investigation was not conducted properly. The court below has ignored the conclusions of police, recorded in the final Report and the appellants were summoned without there being any credible evidence against them. It has further been submitted that the appellant no.1 is a 84 years old person and he is suffering from various ailments. The statements of witnesses were referred and it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the appellants and that the impugned summoning order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and argued that in view of statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C, and of witnesses, under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the appellants and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 2

8. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused on the basis of a private complaint all that is required is a satisfaction by the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the records made available and the evidence adduced by the complainant. At that stage the Magistrate has to find out whether prima facie case made out against the accused or not. The Magistrate is not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence at the stage of 203/204 Cr.P.C. All that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during preliminary enquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. that there is prima facie evidence in support of charge levelled against the accused. The Magistrate / Court has to see whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and in that process the court is not to weigh the evidence meticulously. However, the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint.

9. In Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2004) 4 SCC 432, it was held as under:- "10. ....The taking of cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons."

10. Thus, it is clear that at the stage of summoning the accused on the basis of a private complaint, the Magistrate / court has to satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the material on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant. The Magistrate has to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not, however it is equally desirable that the order of the Magistrate summoning 3 the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.

11. In the instant case, the allegations have been levelled against the appellants that on 31.12.2016 on the issue of grazing goats in the land of the appellants, the respondent No. 2 / complainant was abused and assaulted by the appellants by using words 'matherchor jaati chamyin dhaikain'. The fact that alleged incident took place in open land and the incident was witnessed by other persons, who have been examined as witness under section 202 Cr.P.C, goes to show that the incident took place in public view. As stated above, at the stage of summoning only it is to be seen whether prima facie case is made out against the accused persons for proceedings further or not. The complainant has reiterated the said allegations in her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The witnesses, examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C, have also supported the version of complainant. The Court below has considered the entire facts and summoned the appellants by a reasoned order. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order. Thus, the prayer for quashing of proceedings and impugned order is refused.

12. Considering entire material on record, the impugned order is upheld. However, it is directed that in case the appellants surrender before the court below within a period of 45 days from today and move an application for bail in accordance with law, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

13. With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal is disposed off. Order Date :- 09.5.2022 A. Tripathi TRIPATHI Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4