M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CLMJ’. N034 of 2007 APPLICANT Laminatayan Upadhayay, s/o Devsharan Upadhayay, aged about 39 yeaxs, Occlipation Photo Studio Shop, R/o Bajrang Chowk, Police Station Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur 0G) Versus RESP 1. State V of Chhattisgarh, Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur (C.G). P. S. Sunjl Kumar, s/o hikham, Devangan, aged about 29 years, r/o ‘ Village Majarkata (Gariyaband) Tahsil Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur' (C.G) ’ Talim Khan, ‘s/o Haheeb Khan, aged about 33 yeam, Occupatidn STD PCO Village Malgaon, Policc Station and Tahsil Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur (CG). Shiva Sinha, s/o Mahash Ram Sinha, aged about 35 years, Occupation Teacher, / R/o Gan'yabaud, RS. andv Tahsil Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur (C.G) Criminal Revision uls 482 of the Code of onmmalhocedure Amwance: Suit. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel/for me applicant. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on advance copy. on”. on (18.7.2007) . Shuil Kama: Sinha, J: Heard on admission. ' The petitioner Who was arrayed as an accused in complaint case No.9/2006 pending in the Court. ofJ.M.F‘.C., Gariyahand, has challenged the validity of/registrafion of criminal. case and iseuance i ONDENT B mm a _ 2 Cr.M.P. 94/07 of process against him by the urt n criminal complaint til. by mspount no.2. ed de Th briaf facts ar tat on dispute of certain fored e e h g ocunt pertaining to a loan traactin, a comlain case s dme nso pt wa filed responnt no.2 before he Court of J.F.C. Gariyaband, ~ o which a enquil aé ncte an tatment f itness n n y w codud d ses o wes were recorded an the aftel; oing through entr materia on d n g the ie l record, the Magtrat directe for regratio of the ca 42,0 ise d istn se u/ s of .P.C. an a dilecte r suae f pmcess against the I d lso d fo isnc o petitioner. d l ner th io t a Learne counse for the petitio argues at. prr o this, ml c ai spnt 2 the It criina ase was registered agnst reonde no. on epor of tier . uch ton b h petion u/s 420 IP.C., and after s aci taken y te p, de 2 r li l etitioner responnt no. in retaation,has tiled this crimina complaint. She argues that. in fact, no prima faoie case was made out against the petitioner as the action itSelfwas malatide. In the matter of Chandra Deo Sinai: 413- Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose 8s another, Am 1963 s.C. 1430, the apex‘ Court held that for determining the question Whether any process is to, he issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is Whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether ”there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can he determined, only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. As stated in sub-section (1) of Section 202 itself, the object of the enquiry is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint, but the Magistrate making the enquiry has to do this @ ‘ said Co o a ‘ by de t M. VEH 3 Cr.M.P. 94/07 only with mference to the intrinsic quality of the statemcnts made before him at the 'cuquily which would naturally moan the complaint itself, the statement on oath made by the complajnant. and the statements made befom him by persons examined. at the t instance of the complaint. The Apex Court further held that since a the object of an enquiry ungier section 202 is to ascertain Whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true, the ‘ Magistrate acnng under section 203 has to satisfy himself that ' there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In order to come to this conclusion, he is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him 01: " recorded in an enquiry under section 202, or statements made in ‘ an investigation under that section, as the case may be. He is not entitled to rely upon any material besides this. Where there is a prima. facie evidence, even though an accused may have a defence that the offence is committed by some other person or persons, the matter has to he left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of process cannot be reinsed. The Wordings of section 203 are also clear to show that if, after consideration of the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and all the Witnesses and the result of the enquiry or investigation, if any, u/s 202, the Magistrate is of the 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. The words “sufficient grounds” used by the Legislature in section 203 is construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the persons accused by . the evidence of the Witnesses entitled to a reaSonable degree of / . l l l 4 Cr.M.P. 94/07 cmdit. This clearly means that if in the opinion of the Magistram, ~ ,a reasonable degree of cmdit is not attached to the testimony of the witness examined. before him for the purpose of his satisfaction regarding prima facie case, and he is not satisfied, then, the V Magistrate would be fully competent to dismiss the complaint 1 under the prow'sions of section 203 Cr.P.C In the ptesent case the order sheet would show that after due enquny, the Magistrate deemed 1t ti to reglster the case and. ultimately exercising such jurisdiction, directed for issuance of E process against the petitioner. The arguments regarding jendencyr of an. earlier case between the parh'es and further the argumeut‘ ~were not to he considered at the time of issuance of process by the Magistrate. The Magistrate has issued the process on the basis of the prima facie case. The arguments advanced by learned counsel / for the petitioner on these gmunds cannot be accepted. In view of the above, l do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned older. The petition has no merits and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA /\ Judge /7/ \ Sdl- 7 ,