IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.45729 of 2008 1. Syed Rafique Haidar, son of Late Syed Ghani Haidar. 2. Naseem Haidar, son of Late Syed Ghani Haidar. 3. Nadeem Haidar, son of Rafique Haidar. 4. Rashid Haidar, son of Rafique Haidar. 5. Saidullah alias Saidullah Ansari, son of Late Ali Hasan. All resident of Mohalla-Chand Mari, P.O. Motihari, Police Station-Motihari (Town), District-East Champaran. …………………………………………………Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Satendra Kumar Pandey, son of Shiv Pujan Pandey, Resident of Mohalla-Chand Mari, Police Station- Motihari, P.O. Motihari, District-East Champaran. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: M/s. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate and Zeyaul Hoda, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, A.P.P. ------------------------------- O R D E R 3. 9.9.2011. The petitioners have filed this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order dated 18.7.2008 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, in Criminal Revision No.243 of 2006, affirming the order dated 6.6.2006 passed by the court of Sri P. Trivedi, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Motihari, 2 summoning the accused-petitioners on inquiry finding prima facie case under Section 323, 380 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against them in Complaint Case No.281 of 2006. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the present complaint case is a counter blast of Motihari Town P.S. Case No.333 of 2005, which was lodged by the petitioner no.1 against the complainant and others in which the police has submitted chargesheet against the complainant- opposite party no.2 and others. It has also been submitted that this complaint case has been filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 only with a view to harass the accused-petitioners and to save his skin to the case of Motihari Town P.S. Case No.333 of 2005. 3. Perused the order dated 18.7.2008 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, in Criminal Revision No.243 of 2006 as preferred against the order dated 6.6.2006 passed by the court of Sri P. Trivedi, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Motihari, in Complaint Case No.281 of 2006 and also the order dated 6.6.2006. It appears from the order dated 6.6.2006 that on perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. of the complainant and the statements of three witnesses, the learned Magistrate 3 arrived at the conclusion that prima facie case under Sections 323, 380 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused-petitioners and, accordingly, ordered to issue summon against them for their appearance. From the order dated 18.7.2008, it appears that the Ist Additional Sessions Judge after discussing in detail arrived at the conclusion that there is no illegality in the order dated 6.6.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, and accordingly, affirmed the same. The inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only limited to ascertain whether prima facie case is made out on perusal of the complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses for issuing the process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. against the accused. It is not within the province of the Magistrate to go beyond the complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses to look into the defence of the accused. As such, I find nothing in the impugned order to show the abuse of the process of the court. 4. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners may raise the points as raised herein at the appropriate stage during the 4 course of the trial. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)