IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.291 of 2002 ================================================== 1. Uma Shankar Jha, son of Late Balmukund Jha 2. Most. Yogmaya Devi, wife of Late Balmukund Jha. (both residents of Barhiya Dhanraj Tola, Ward No.9, P.S.- Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai). 3. Ravindra Nath Singh, son of Late Babu Shyam Narayan Singh, resident of Barhiya Ward No.2, Sri Kant Tola, P.S.-Barhiya, District-Lakhisarai. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Jata Shankar Jha, son of Late Balmukund Jha, resident of Barhiya Dhanraj Tola, Ward No.9, P.S.-Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai. .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 17.01.2002 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in Complaint Case No.288 C/2001 by which a prima-facie case has been found against them for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 477/34 of the I.P.C. and order has been passed for issuance of summons against them. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.291 of 2002 dt.08-09-2011 2 The case of the complainant-opposite party no.2 is that the land bearing Khata No.318, Plot No.994, Area 70 decimals situated in Mauza-Panchmahla Jalalpur Mahal, Nauranga Pargana, Gayaspur is an ancestral joint property of the complainant, but the accused Uma Shankar Jha and Mostt. Yogmaya Devi have sold 25 decimals of land out of 70 decimals of land to the accused Ravindra Nath Singh (petitioner no.3) dishonestly and fraudulently on 5.09.1995 stating therein that the complainant Jata Shankar Jha is dead and there has been private partition between the complainant and the accused petitioners. The matter of sale had been kept secret from the complainant. When there was survey under Mauza-Panchmahla, Jalalpur Mahul, Nauranga Pargana, Gayaspur, the complainant came to know about the aforesaid sale deed. It has also been alleged that from the Survey Office, the complainant could know that 33 decimals of land out of that land has been mutated in favour of Shanti Devi and Radha Devi, whereas, no sale deed has been executed in their favour. The accused persons have made conspiracy to oust the complainant from her legal right to possess the land which has caused a loss of Rs.80,000/-to the complainant. A Patna High Court CR. REV. No.291 of 2002 dt.08-09-2011 3 complaint petition was filed in the court of learned A.C.J.M, Lakhisarai. On 11.09.2001, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation was recorded and the case was adjourned for examination of the enquiry witnesses. On 20.10.2001, the case was transferred to the court of learned S.D.J.M, Lakhisarai under Section 192 (2) Cr.P.C. for inquiry and disposal. After the inquiry, the learned Magistrate has found a prima-facie case against the accused vide the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that wrong facts have been mentioned in the complaint petition. After the death of Bal Mukund Jha, the property were divided amongst his co-sharers orally and it has also been submitted that in the sale-deed, the complainant Jata Shankar Jha has not been shown as dead, which has been misread by the complainant. He has filed a copy of the sale-deed executed by Uma Shankar Jha and Yogmaya Devi. The leaned Magistrate should not have summoned the petitioners as no case is made out against them. The learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party has submitted that at the time of taking cognizance Patna High Court CR. REV. No.291 of 2002 dt.08-09-2011 4 and issuance of summons against the accused, the learned Magistrate is required to see only a prima-facie case against them. It is not required that the learned Magistrate should consider whether the evidence against them will lead to their conviction or not. It has been further submitted that it appears from the complaint petition, the statement of the accused on solemn affirmation and the three witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant that a prima-facie case is made out against the accused petitioners. No interference is required at this stage. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is correct. At the stage of finding a prima- facie case, the learned Magistrate is not required to examine the evidence meticulously as to whether it would lead to the conviction of the accused or not. It is only required to see as to whether a prima-facie case is made out against the accused or not. In this case, the learned Magistrate has considered the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the witnesses examined under the inquiry and the learned Patna High Court CR. REV. No.291 of 2002 dt.08-09-2011 5 Magistrate has also made query from the witnesses. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise their grievance at the time of framing of charge. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 8th September, 2011 NAFR/V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)