IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1172 of 2008 1. BADRI SAO , son of Bhagwan Sao 2. Rajesh Sao, Son of Badri Sao, 3. Ramji Sao, Son of Badri Sao 4. Kunal Sao, Son of Badri Sao All residents of Mohalla- Dhobi Tola, P.S. Danapur, District- Patna ----- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Gita Devi, Wife of Sheoji Prasad, resident of Sultanpur, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna, at present R/o C.R.Dutta Singh, Akhara Road, Yadubansi Nagar, Digha, P.S. Digha, District-Patna ------ Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Advocate -------------- O R D E R This application has been preferred by the four named accused of Complaint Case no.53 (C) of 2007 for quashing of the order dated 29.5.2007 passed therein by Sri R.K.Ravidas, Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 323,452,379 and 384/34 I.P.C. The complainant, one Gita Devi, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2, filed the aforesaid complaint on 18.1.2007 inter alia stating that she has been a tenant of the petitioners since the past one year and had been paying the rental regularly. However, it is alleged , that at about 1-1.30 P.M. on 16.1.2007, all the accused persons accompanied by 3-4 unknown others came to her house and ordered her to vacate the tenanted premises and when she queried as to where she would go as she had no other place to stay, all the accused persons erupted in a rage and started assaulting her with slaps and fists and in - 2 - course thereof accused no.2, Rajesh Sao, picking up a Jharu ( broom) that was lying around started beating her with it and also attempted to strangulate her by pressing her neck. They also forcibly obtained her signature on some blank sheets of paper. Thereafter, they dismissively decimated all her household belongings including cereals, utensils, bedrolls etc. It is also alleged that accused Rajesh Sao snatched her golden earrings and accused Ramji Sao took away her Mangalsutra, as a result whereof she claims to have suffered a loss of about Rs.6250/-. It is said that cries of the wailing children and intervention by the neighbours who had gathered saved the situation for her. While departing the accused persons threateningly warned her to vacate the premises on her own or else she would be thrown out and all her belongings would be looted. On return of her husband in the night she narrated the incident to him whereafter both travelled to the Police Station to lodge information. The police assured to come over and see the situation but the assurance was never fulfilled. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in fact no occurrence as alleged took place and it was with malafide intentions that a false story had been cooked up to avoid eviction since the landlord had personal necessity of the premises for the use of his son and had requested her to vacate the same but she had requested for six months time and when she was reminded once more at the end of six months she refused to vacate the premises and threatened to involve them in a false case. It was further submitted that the falsity of the case would be apparent from the fact that on 10.03.2007, the husband of the - 3 - complainant had filed Danapur P.S. Case no.200 of 2007 under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. against the petitioners on the allegation that during the holi festival they had gone to their native village and on return they had found the door of the house unlocked and all their belongings stolen and when they made enquiries from petitioner no.1 they were abused and on due investigation the police had found the case to be false and had recommended for his prosecution under Sections 188 and 211 I.P.C. It was finally submitted that the complainant and her family had since vacated the premises and were living elsewhere. Admittedly, the case arises out of a complaint petition and is set in motion by holding of an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It is by now well settled that 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 as also to find out what material there is to support the allegations made in the complaint. As observed in Chandradeo Vrs. Prokash Chandra ( A.I.R. 1963 SC 1430) since the object of an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether the allegation made in the complaint are intrinsically true, the Magistrate acting under Section 203 Cr.P.C. has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and in order to come to such conclusion he is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him or recorded in the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. but he cannot or is not entitled to look into or rely upon any other material besides this. - 4 - The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners unfortunately happens to be their defence which cannot be looked into at this stage and has to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. From perusal of the complaint petition a clear case of commission of overt act of assault, theft , house trespass and extortion appears to have been made out which can be proved or disproved by leading cogent evidence at a full dressed trial. Even if the petitioners had personal necessity of the tenanted premises, they should not have taken law in their own hands and should have resorted to legal action. Taking law in one’s own hand invites criminal liability which has to be decided by adopting the standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt”. As observed in the case of Kamladevi Agrawal Vrs.State of West Bengal reported in (2002) 1 SCC 655, the revisional or inherent power of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the F.I.R., even if taken on their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. This is not the case here. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 26th February,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.