IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.9538 of 2010 ***** Manka Devi, Wife of Om Prakash Mahto, resident of Village-Mahrath, P.S.- Kashichak, District-Nawada. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Hira Singh W/o Late Vilayati Singh. 3. Roshan Singh, S/o Late Vilayati Singh. 4. Shrimati Devi, W/o Late Vilayati Singh. All resident of Village-Mahrath, P.S.-Kashichak, P.O.-Wajidpur, District- Nawada. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indra Deo Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satyendra Narain Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 19.3.2010. The petitioner initiated a criminal action by filing an application under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the accused opposite parties intended to illegally capture her property, a piece of land. It was alleged that the accused entered her house at night, assaulted her husband, son and took away jewellery, cash and other articles. An enquiry was held under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant deposed that there was no violence. Learned Magistrate on the basis of material brought on record came to hold that not an iota of allegation had been proved - 2 - and on the contrary the witnesses examined by the complainant had not supported the story set out in the complaint. Because of the said position he dismissed the complaint petition. Being grieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred a criminal revision which was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-3, Nawada. The revisional court upon perusal of the record came to hold that the finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate that the witnesses had not supported the allegations made by the complainant is correct and there is no factual error in record. It was also observed that the analysis of evidence made by the learned trial Magistrate was acceptable in law. Criticising the aforesaid order learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below had erred in law by not taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 380 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It is canvassed by him that the appreciation of evidence brought on record has been made in a perfunctory manner by the learned Magistrate and the same has been illegally concurred with by the revisional court and, - 3 - therefore, both the orders deserve to be quashed and a direction is to be issued for taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence. To buttress the said stand reliance has been placed upon the decision rendered in Bibi Gulshan v. The State of Bihar & Ors., [ 2007 (1) BLJ 18-PHC ]. In the said case in paragraph 3 the learned Judge has held thus: - “3. Admittedly, one of the objects behind the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to enable the Magistrate to scrutinize carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face an obviously frivolous complaint. However, there is also another object behind this provision and it is to find out what material there is to support the allegations made in the complaint. It is the bounden duty of the Magistrate while making an enquiry to elicit all facts not merely with a view to protect the interest of an absent accused but also with a view to bring to book a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made. But it must be remembered that an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. can in no sense be characterised as a trial for the simple reason that it is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case as is done at a trial. That apart there are a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that under the inherent jurisdiction the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or undertake a reappraisal of the evidence. Reference in this connection may be made to the discussion in Kapur vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 S.C. 866), Madan vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 S.C. 1590), Bakhsis vs. Gurnej (AIR 1988 S.C. 257), Municipal Corporation vs. Pursuhottam (1983) 1 S.C.C. 9) and State of U.P. vs. Srivastava (AIR 1989 S.C. 2222).” - 4 - Relying on the said paragraph emphasis has been led upon by Mr. Indra Deo Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate should have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective regard being had to the fact the Magistrate is not required to enter into a detailed discussion on the merits of the case. There cannot be a quarrel over the proposition of law laid down in Bibi Gulshan (supra), but the factual matrix in the present case is quite different. When the allegation made in the complaint has not got support from the witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that there was no justification to summon the accused persons to face an unnecessary and unwarranted trial as that would have amounted to abuse of the process of the Court. In view of the aforesaid, I do not perceive any merit in the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Pawan/ (Dipak Misra, CJ)