1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.77 of 2006. Date of Decision: November 14, 2008. ____________________________________________________________ Tara Singh and others. …….. Petitioners. Versus Ranbir Singh. …….. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Naresh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Anita Dogra, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J(oral). The petitioners herein are accused in the complaint case filed by the respondent. After an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners were ordered to be summoned under Sections 452, 323, 379, 506, 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned trial court vide order dated 3.11.2004, which was assailed before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 17/04 RBT 47/05/04, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Una, vide order dated 28.7.2006. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the courts below, the instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure read with Article 227 of the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Constitution of India, for quashing the summoning order, on the grounds that a false case was fabricated by the complainant against the petitioners and none from the family of the complainant was examined to support his version that he was taking meals when the alleged incident took place. Further that there was a delay in filing the complaint and further that when the complainant was allegedly given beatings by the petitioners, he should have sustained the injuries but in the absence of the medico legal certificate, this version remained unsubstantiated, thus, the learned trial court while not taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, wrongly summoned the accused-petitioners. Shri Pankaj Negi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while elaborating the aforesaid points, submitted that in these circumstances, the complaint filed by the respondent is proved to be false. There was a litigation going on inter-se the parties prior to the alleged incident, wherein CWs Shiv Dev Singh and Dharamvir were arraigned accused, which aspect was not looked into by the learned trial court. Ms. Anita Dogra learned counsel appearing for the respondent has countered the aforesaid arguments that at the stage of summoning the witnesses, the learned Magistrate is not required to sift the evidence. She further argued that the objections raised above, on behalf of the accused-petitioners, do not arise at this stage for determination. She submitted that the cognizance taken by the learned trial court for the offences aforesaid is legally and factually correct and the matter was properly appreciated by the 3 learned Sessions Judge in a detailed order passed in the revision petition, therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed. I have given thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions of the parties and have examined the record. In the complaint filed by the respondent, it is alleged that on 12.9.2004, at about 8.00 p.m. when the complainant was taking his meals in his house, the petitioners herein entered into his house with lathies, abused him and gave beatings to him with lathies, kick and fist blows. He was relieved from their clutches by Dharambir and Shiv Dev Singh, who came there on hearing the cries. While leaving the place, the accused-petitioners alleged to have threatened him and took away his agricultural equipments worth Rs.3,000/- and committed theft thereof. The learned trial court recorded the preliminary evidence. Complainant Ranbir Singh was examined to substantiated his complaint. He also produced CW-2 Dharamvir as an eye witness to support his version. On going through the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offences aforesaid and ordered to summon the petitioners herein as accused. It is a settled law that at the stage of issuing the summons, the Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind, for his satisfaction whether the prima-facie case is made out against the accused persons. At that stage, he is not to see whether the accused shall be convicted or acquitted. Undoubtedly the Magistrate has been given the discretion in the matter. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion, it cannot be lightly interfered with unless it is perverse. 4 It has been held in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others [AIR 1976 Supreme Court Cases 1947] that the scope of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint- (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In fact, in proceedings under Section 202 of the Code the accused has got absolutely no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. Thus, at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or de-merits of the case nor can the High Court go into the probabilities of defence raised either in revision petition or in the petition of the present nature. The Supreme Court in Ajay Mehta and another v. Durgesh Babu and others [2001(3) Crimes 155 (SC) held that at the time of taking cognizance of offence and issue of process question of 5 consideration of material other than the complaint and statement of complainant and evidence under Section 202 Cr.P.C. does not arise. In the instant case, the complaint and the statements of the witnesses prima facie disclose reasonable grounds to summon the petitioners as accused under Sections 452, 323, 379, 506, 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision has rightly appreciated the law and facts on record, therefore, no interference is called for by this court in the impugned order, as such, this petition is dismissed. The record of the courts below be returned forthwith and the parties are hereby directed to be present before the learned trial Court on 11.12.2008. November 14, 2008. (Surinder Singh) ( Pds ) Judge.