;';'^ HIGH COURT O^ CHHATTISSARH, BILASPUR Cr.MJ', No. 84 of 200C Mohaa Lal S/o Anandrani Chauhan, Aged about 27 years, R/o Vifl.- Thangaa, Tahsil - Dabra, Distt. - Jaajgir-Charapa (C.G.) Smt. Sushila W/o Mohan Lal, aged abc»ut 23 years, R/o Vffl. - Thangan, TaiiiSfl - Dabra, Distt - Janjgir- Chainpa(C.G.) 3 Mohiti-aiu S/o Pfla Gountiya, Aged about 50 vears. Uttra Bai V//o Mohitram, Aged about 45 vears. Petitioners 3 ra 4 are R/o Vfllage Achritpali, P.S. Matkharondha, Distt. Jaiijgir-Champa (C. G.) Resoondent Sm.t. Kewati Devi D/'o Lalai'am., Aged about 28 years, R/o ViUage Sodka, P.S. - Kharsia, Distt.- Raigarh, Presently residing at Gaadlli N^ar, Regal Pali Road, Raigarh, Distt : Raigarh (C.G.) ff8etit»oHuader Sectioa 482 of Cir.P.CI Shri Ai-un Shukla, Coiinsel for the petitioners. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, CQunsel for the rcspondent. f (ST.OS.SOO?) SUNSL KUaiAR SIKHA. J. (13 Heard. . |S) Tlus petitionis directed against'th&.prier flated 11.08.2006 passed in Cnininal Revision No. 53/2006 by the SVth Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raigarli (C.G.), whereby the said Court diSinissed the criniinal n'vision ofthe petitioners, which was filed agaiust the orier dated 27.2.200fi passed in Criniina] Case No. 1471/3005 by fhe Judicial Magista-ate Fh-st Class, Rajgai-h (C.G.). :>,w<.ii)lUfcJUid!..UA Cr.M.P. No. 84 of 2006 ^i (3| The brief facts ai'e that the nespondent filed a criininal coniplaint against the petitioners before the tria1 Court under Sections 494 & 109 read with Section 34 ofI.P.C. iiiakine certain aBegations. The Magistrate took cognizance in the matter by passiag aa order of rRgistration and issuaiice of process 011 22.10.2005 on the basis of priina facie evidence available before LJ huu. for tlie gurposes ofi-egistia(ion.He diFected for negistration ; ;'JJo.a-t»£-e^^^ ^f; •orocess of tlie ca.se utlder Sections 494 &, 109 I.P.C. V/hen tlie petitioners appeared before ttie Magistrate, they filed aa appUcation for disinissal ofthe coinplaint on 12.1.2006. The said applicatioil was disiiussed by the Magistrate on 27.2.2006. The petifioners have challenged the nforesaid oider dated 27.2.2006 before the revisional Court, in which tbe said Cotirt disinissed their revision and uplield the order passed by the Magistrate. It is against fliis order passed by the i-evisional Cou-rt, t.he present petition has been filed. (4j Leaitied counsel for petirioners argiies that in aiiotJier proceedings filed by the respondent under Section 1.25 Cr.P.C., it was held. that the respondent was not legally mamed wife of petitioner No, 1, fhen'fore, in light. ofthat onler passed by flie said Court, the Mag^strate should haye disinissed the coinplanit, which was i^gistened for the offence punishable linder Sections 494 & 109 I,P.C.,at th.e instance oftiie respondent. (5) The revisional Courf has dealt wife the point in Para-11 of tlie uitpugned orier. It lias taken a vieiv that the pioceedings drawn beforc the Magistcate for grarit of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are in the nature of suinmaiy proceeduigs, tlierefore, tJie' findiiig recorded by ^iie Magisfa-at.e wonld not be biiiding in subseqifent proceedings to 1iold that fhe respoudent was not - legally wedded wife .of petitioner No.1. Morcover, the revisional Coiirt also said tliat a siut for declaKition that ttie respondent was legalty weddeil wife ofpetitioner No.l is pending before fhe Fauiily Court and no decree has been passed in the said suit regarding tlie facfum Q^ relationsiiip between ttieni, s9flBK91SiS^ -^Sit. Cr.M.P. No. 84 of 2006 therefore, flie trial Court has righUy nejected fhe appUcatioiLofthe petitioners for disniissal ofthe coaiplaint on fliese grounds. |6) So far as legal position pertaiuing to the registration ofthe complaiat and issuance ofprocess is concenied, it has been held by the Suprenie Court in the luatter of Smt. Nagcaiiwa. Vs. Veeranna. Shivalinyappa. Konsatfil & uthers, AIS. 1976 SC 1947 fhat at the stage of issul^lg process ihe Magistrate is mainly coucenied with tbe allegations inade in fce coiiiplaint or the evidence led ui support of the saine and be is only to bc prinia facie satisfied whether feese are sufScient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magisti-ate to euter into a del.ailed discussion of the uierits or de-nierits of the case nor cau the High Court go iHto this inatter in its revisional jurisdiction which is a veiy linuted one. The Apex Court fiii-ther said fliat it is tnie that in coining to a decision as to wbeflier a process should be issiied the Magistrate can take into consideration uAerent improbabilities appearing on the face of the coinplaiat or in tlie evidence led by the coiiiplaiua&t iu support of flie aUegations but tiiere appears to 1oe a veiy tbin Un.e of demarcatiou between a probability of conviction of the accused and establishinent of a prima facie case against him. The Ms^istrat.e has been given an un-doubted discretiou in the inatter and flie discretion has to be judicialiy exercised by hiai. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretioa it is not for the High Court, or even the Supreme Court, to siibstitilte its own discretion tbr ti-iat of the Magisti-ate or to exainine the case on inerits with a view to fincl out whether or not the alleeations in the coniplajnt, ifproved, would iiltimately end iii convictioii oftAe accused. These consideratioas are totally foreign to the scope and ambit ofaa inqiiiiy under Section 2<52 which ciiiiainates iuto an order under Section 204. The Apex Court also said that in the foUowing cases au order of the Magisti-ate issuing process agaiast tiie accused can be quashed or sset aside. (1) Wliere the allegations niade in the eoinplauit or fhe stateiuent of tlie ^vitaesses recorded iu support of fhe same taken at their ^.•"^?/-:':.'..:-^^.' Gr.M.P. No. 84 of 2006 face value Biake out absolutely no case agauist fhe accused or ftie coniplaint does not disclose fh.e essential ingredieuts of aa offence which is aUeged against fhe accused; (2) whsre the allegations made in the complamt are patentty absurd and uiherently itaprobable so that no prudent person caa ever reach a conclusion that fhere is sufScient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) where tfte discretion exercised by the Magistrate iti issuing process is capricious and arbitiary haviag been based either on no evidence or on inaferials which are wholly irrelevaat or inadinissiblc; and (4) where the coiiLp'SainLt siiffers from fiuidamental leeal defects, such as, want of sa&ctiou, or absence of a coiitplaint by SegaUy coinpetent auftiority aad fhe like, (7) Ifwe exaitune the order passed by fhe trial Court as also by tlie Sessions Court, it does not appear that eitlier the OFder of issuaace of process or Uie order of rejecting the application for disiaissal of the coniplaint. suffers with such inheiT'nt iBegalities waiTantiug interference by this Court under Sectioa 482 of Cr.P.C. (8) The petition has not merit, the saiae -;s accoriingly disnussed, Suni! Kumar Sinha — ' Judge vatti llilin!