IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21954 of 2001 BIBI NEWAZAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 18.8.2010. Heard Sri Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 7. The allegation is of putting a fictitious lady in place of the complainant, Bibi Newazan, and the accused persons acting in connivance with each other creating a false document showing transfer of a particular land through a deed of gift (Hibanama) by the lady complainant. While she went to do some acts of her possession, it was resisted by the accused persons on that ground and, thereafter, she obtained the copy of the fabricated deed and filed a complaint petition. After enquiry the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Motihari summoned the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 7 by order dated 14.6.2000 passed in Complaint Case No.102 of 2000 holding that there was a prima-facie case made out indicating the commissions of offences under Sections 467, 468, 419 and 420 of the IPC and, as such, directed the issuance of summons against them. - 2 - That order was challenged before the Sessions Court through Cr.Revision No.343 of 2000 which was heard and disposed of by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari on 28.5.2001 and while allowing the revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class on 14.6.2000 was bad in law inasmuch as, there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons. I have perused the order of the Revisional Court and I find that while discussing the evidence of witnesses, he has gone to appreciate the same, as if he were passing the full-fledged judgement on conclusion of the trial. It hardly requires to be pointed out that at the time of examining the record of an inferior criminal court for exercising its revisional jurisdiction, specially, in respect of an order passed under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C., a Revisional Court cannot go beyond the materials placed on record and could not exercise its jurisdiction which could be limited to finding out as to whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding or not. Even for that purposes, the Revisional Court was required to treat the - 3 - allegations in the complaint petition to be true and view the allegations in that light and read the evidence of the witnesses only for indicating whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or there was no sufficient ground in that behalf. The learned Judge as may appear from paragraphs-8 and 9 of his order appreciated the evidence by reading probabilities and by marshaling the facts. This was completely outside his jurisdiction as may appear from Supreme Court decision rendered in Smt. Nagawwa Vrs. Veeranna reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947. Considering the above aspect of the order, the order of the Revisional Court is hereby quashed and that passed on 14.6.2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Motihari in Complaint Case No.102 of 2000 is restored. The Magistrate shall proceed with the case. The petition is allowed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )