Ram Nath vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

Hans Raj instituted complaint No. 23/1 of 8.12.1990/8.2.1996 against Mangat Ram and others under Sections 323/324/325/447/452/148/149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Magistrate on the allegations that on 7.10.1990 at about 10.30 PM Mangat Ram son of Raja Ram, Ram Nath, Naval Kumar, Ram Kumar, Ramesh Kumar (Rajesh Kumar) sons of Mangat Ram and Jai Singh son of Brahma Nand armed with lathis and other deadly weapons came to his residential house in the form of an unlawful assembly common object of which was to kill him and damage his property. Ram Nath was armed with kulhari, Jai Singh was armed with gandasi and other accused were armed with lathis. They began abusing the complainant (Hans Raj) in the name of his mother and sister. Complainant opened the door of his house and came out. He asked Mangat Ram and other accused as to what the matter was. Hans Raj was caught hold of by Mangat Ram and others. He was dragged from his house to the street. He was given beating mercilessly by all the accused. Ram Nath gave kulhari blow on the head of Hans Raj while Jai Singh gave him gandasi blow from the blunt side of the gandasi and the blow landed on the right eye of the complainant. Rest of the accused gave him lathi blows, thus causing injuries which began to bleed. He raised hue and cry and became unconscious at the spot. Mangat Ram son of Rulia Ram a member panchayat, Karta Ram son of Amar Singh and Prem Chand who were present nearby witnessed the occurrence. They saved complainant from the clutches of the accused. While leaving the spot accused threatened the complainant that this time he had been saved by witnesses but they would kill him in the near future as and when opportunity came their way. Accused threatened that they will teach him lesson for lodging complaint before Deputy Commissioner, Ambala against Mangat Ram accused for his purchase of the plot belonging to the society. The complainant knocked the door of Police Station, Naraingarh but the police took no action against the accused despite the complainant had been got examined with the intervention of the police.

Motive for causing injuries to the complainant was that he was Director of Cooperative Credit Society of village Nanhera. Mangat Ram purchased plot belonging to the society vide sale deed date 8.2.1990 for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 6050/ acting in league with the Manager of the society. Manager was not empowered to execute the sale deed on behalf of the society. Plot was of much higher value which was sold at a meagre rate by the Manager of the society. Complainant being director of the society lodged written complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala and it was learnt that on enquiry Deputy Commissioner, Ambala had ordered the sale deed to be cancelled.

After holding preliminary enquiry into the allegations of the complaint, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala found that there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against Mangat Ram and other accused. On this premise, she dismissed the complaint.

Not satisfied with this order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, Hans Raj went in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala accepted the revision vide order dated 27.5.1997 and set aside the order dated 18.4.1996 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala and remanded the case to that court for rehearing the complainant and then to issue process against the accused as per law.

Not satisfied with the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge dated 27.5.1997 Ram Nath and others have knocked the door of this Court through this revision and have prayed for the restoration of the order passed by the Magistrate.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record.

Sections 200, 203 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are relevant to the present controversy are reproduced :

Section 200: Examination of complainant A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:

Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses

(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192:

Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not reexamine them.

Section 203: 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: Issue of process (1) If in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be

(a) a summonscase, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrantcase, 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.

(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.

(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.

(4) When by any law for the time being in force any processfees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87.

The use of words "sufficient grounds" for proceeding under Sections 203 and 204 are quite significant. In Ruby and otherspetitioners v. Jasbir Singh respondent, 1996(3) Recent CR 651 , it was held that the object of enquiry or investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no person shall be compelled to answer a criminal charge unless the Court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case for issuing process against the accusedperson.

In M/s. Lily Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd., Jalandharpetitioner v. Darshan Lalrespondent, 1997(1) Recent CR 580 , it was held that the scope of the enquiry in a complaint case is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint on the materials placed by the complainant before Court. Once the Magistrate is satisfied on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant that a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint coupled with the evidence produced by him, the Magistrate is competent to issue process under Section 204 of the Code. The only condition requisite for the issue of process is that the complainant''s deposition must show some sufficient grounds for proceeding. If the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the facts deposed by the complainant disclosed an offence and in his opinion there is no ground for distrusting the complainant, the Magistrate would be justified in issuing the process.

While declining to issue process or issuing process the Magistrate has only to weigh whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. If in his opinion there appears to be not even prima facie weight in the complaint as revealed by the examination of the complainant before him and other witnesses and enquiry or investigation if any under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he will then dismiss the complaint through a brief order. If on the other hand he feels that the complaint appears to be prima facie truthful, he shall summon the accused, put them on trial before him and try the complaint in presence of the complainant and the accused. The words "sufficient grounds" used in Sections 203 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure suggest only this much that there should be some weight in the complaint and not necessarily that complaint must end in conviction. Magistrate was, therefore, required only to see this much whether the version of the complaint as disclosed by Hans Raj, Prem Chand and Mangat Ram witnesses did or did not make out a prima facie case against the accused so that they could be put on trial. At the stage of issuing process to the accused, in a complaint case, the Magistrate is not required to delve deep into appreciating the evidence led by the complainant with a view to issue process against the accused. At that stage, the Magistrate is required to see only this much whether complaint has some ring of truth about it. If there is some ring of truth about it, he will issue process against the accused and put them on trial.

In this case, the Magistrate has delved deep into appreciating the evidence led by the complainant during the course of preliminary enquiry. She undertook the exercise whether the ocular account was corroborated by medical account in all its essentials not knowing that it was not a stage where she was to decide whether she should record conviction or acquittal. Magistrate did not try to weigh the evidence in a broader perspective keeping in view that it was a stage where she was to decide whether complaint should be nipped or it should be taken further and the accused tried.

It was not examination in chief by counsel of the complainant and his witnesses. It was rather examination by the Court of the complainant and the witnesses produced by him and, therefore it was the duty of the Magistrate to have elicited why complaint was instituted on 8.12.1990 when the occurrence had allegedly taken place on 7.10.1990. In my opinion Magistrate exceeded the jurisdiction vesting in her while declining to issue process against the accused.

Faced with this position, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Magistrate was justified in declining to issue process against the accused when she felt that it could not be a case for conviction. In my opinion this submission is fallacious inasmuch as for issuing process against the accused, the Magistrate has to look to the provisions of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While discharging accused, the Magistrate has to look to the provisions of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that if upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, Magistrate considers for reasons to be recorded that no case against the accused has been made out which if un rebutted would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. The language used in section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is thus materially different from the language used in section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the time when the Magistrate is to decide whether he should summon the accused for trial, he is simply to see whether there is prima facie case or the complaint discloses no ground whatever against the accused. On the other hand, Magistrate will proceed to frame charge only if it is felt that the evidence produced by the prosecution is so foolproof as to end in conviction, if the accused does not rebut it through leading defence evidence. Magistrate will discharge the accused if he/she feels that the evidence produced by the complainant is not that weighty as to end in conviction. Standard of appreciation of evidence is thus different in both these situations.

If the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge is viewed in this light, the conclusion would be that there is no infirmity in it. So, this criminal revision is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala is affirmed. Magistrate will now proceed to try the accused. The matter is already more than 7 years old. It is expected that the Magistrate will strain every nerve and conclude the trial as soon as it is possible for him to do so.

JUDGMENT accordingly.