IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22726 of 2004 1. Gannu Das , son of Late Sukhal Das, 2. Dukhan Das, Son of Sukhal Das 3. Gaangu Das, Son of Late Sadhu Das 4. Mathura Deas, Son of Gangu Das 5. Surendra Das, Son of Gangu Das All resident of Village- Bahuara Sujan, P.S. Kalyanpur and District-East Champaran ---- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Yogi Das, Son of Suraj Das, resident of Village-Bahuara Sujan, P.S. Kalyanpur and District- East Champaran ---------------- Opp.Parties ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. ------------ O R D E R The petitioners, five in number, through this application have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 25.6.2004 passed by Sri Rama Shankar Singh Yadav, the erstwhile 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, in Cr.Revision No.278 of 2003 whereby while dismissing the revision on merit he has affirmed the order dated 5.8.2003 passed by Sri S.C. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Motihari, in protest-cum- Complaint Case No.C118 of 2003, Trial no.3863 of 2003 whereunder the learned Magistrate having found a prima facie case to have been made out under Sections 342,364 /34 I.P.C. took cognizance against the petitioners . One Yogi Das, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2 initially filed a written application on the basis whereof Kalyanpur P.S. Case no. 79 of 2002 under Sections 342 and 364 /34 I.P.C. was registered - 2 - against the five petitioners herein and the police after due investigation finding the case to be false submitted a final form and also recommended for taking action against the informant under Sections 182, 211 I.P.C. However, as it appears, during the pendency of the investigation, the informant filed a protest petition against faulty investigation and the learned Magistrate having accepted the final form proceeded with the protest petition and held an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in course whereof he recorded the statement of the complainant on S.A. and examined three witnesses of the complainant, including the victim ( C.W.3) and on consideration of the materials available at the enquiry took cognizance against all the five persons arrayed as accused in the complaint by his order dated 5.8.2003. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners herein approached the Sessions Court in Cr.Revision No.278 of 2003 which was dismissed as aforesaid on merits even as the petitioners remained absent from court. Assailing the impugned order the submission on behalf of the petitioners is that both the courts below had acted illegally in not considering the final form and the case diary which clearly disclosed the falsity of the prosecution case and in that view of the matter the prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the court. The submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioners appears to be an exercise of despair and frustration. - 3 - The law is well settled on this issue. It was succinctly laid down by the Apex Court in Chandradeo Vrs. Prokash Chandra ( AIR 1963 SC 1430 ) that since the object of an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true the Magistrate acting under Section 203 Cr.P.C. has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding . In order to come to this conclusion the Magistrate is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him or recorded by him in the enquiry and he is not entitled to rely upon any other material save and except this. From the impugned order of the revisional court it appears that all the evidence led at the enquiry has been considered by him fully before passing the order. There does not appear any illegality in the said order which is upheld. Accordingly this application fails and is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 22nd April,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.