Manoj Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

K. N. Sinha, J.—By means of present application u/s 482, Cr. P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.12.2000 passed in Criminal Case No. 879 of 2000.

The brief facts, giving rise to the present application, are that the applicant No. 1 was married to opposite party No. 2 on 12.11.1997. Immediately after the marriage, the opposite party No. 2 started insisting to live separately from the family members. As the applicant No. 1 has to look after the other family members hence, he did not yield to the demand of opposite party No. 2 and it resulted in continuous tension between husband and wife. On 7th July, 1999, the father of the opposite party No. 2 along with other family members came to Kanpur and asked applicant No. 1 to send the opposite party No. 2 to Aligarh. The applicant No. 1 asked them to stay at Kanpur for a day or two, when he comes back after bringing her mother who had gone out of city. When the applicant No. 1 returned back, he found that the opposite party No. 2 has left the house along with jewellery and cash, etc. The applicant No. 1 filed a report at police station, Naubasta, district Kanpur and when the police did not take any action then applicant No. 1 moved an application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur ordered an inquiry into the matter and when the opposite party No. 2 came to know about the inquiry report, she lodged complaint on 31.10.2000 and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, I Vth, Aligarh, summoned the applicants by his order dated 13.12.2000. This complaint was lodged after about one and half years of the alleged incident and as a counter blast of the application moved by the applicant No. 1 to the Senior Superintendent of Police. The opposite party No. 2 filed a counter-affidavit in the Court denying the allegations set forth in the affidavit. Further stating that no inquiry was made by the Kanpur Police and the report dated 30.10.2000 may be in collusion with the husband of the answering Respondent. The complaint is based on the actual occurrence and it is not a counter blast to the alleged application to the Senior Superintendent of police by applicant No. 1.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and the learned A.G.A. The complaint was filed about fifteen months prior to the date of occurrence, as stated in paragraph 5 of the complaint and also in respect of an occurrence about one and quarter months prior to the filing of the complaint. The opposite party No. 2 Smt. Shashi examined herself u/s 200, Cr. P.C. and also examined witnesses Phool Singh and Kali Charan, the father of opposite party No. 2, u/s 202, Cr. P.C. On the basis of this statement, order dated 13.12.2000 was passed summoning the applicants as accused. Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that ''if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding ......'' It simply means that the Magistrate has to see if there is sufficient ground to proceed or not. In S.W. Palanitkar and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, the term ''sufficient ground'' has been explained to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground of the purposes of conviction.

Thus, the Court has to see whether prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. This inquiry is only for the limited purpose for ascertaining of truth or falsity.

The Apex Court in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shiva-linagappa Nonjalgi and Ors. (13) 1976 ACC 224 (SC), has laid down the principle that the enquiry u/s 202, Cr. P.C. is limited only to ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint firstly, on the material placed by the complainant and secondly, for limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issuing of process is made out or not.

On the facts of the present case, there is a report to Senior Superintendent of Police and the complainant has examined herself and the two witnesses. In her statement, she has supported the allegations set forth in the complaint. The contention of the complainant was also supported by two witnesses, who had witnessed the occurrence. The evidence available on the record is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the applicants.

Consequently, I find no merit in the application and it is hereby dismissed.