IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18941 of 2007 PREM SAH & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6 22-09-2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although, Opp.Party no.2 , the complainant, was duly noticed and had appeared by filing Vakalatnama, yet at the time of hearing he is conspicuous by his absence. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 1.3.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea in Cr.Revision No.403 of 2006 whereby while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners, he has upheld the order of the learned Magistrate dated 19.10.2006, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case no.2105 of 2005. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially complaint filed by the complainant was transmitted to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis thereof Barhara P.S.Case no.60 of 2004 was registered and after due investigation, the police submitted final form showing the case to be false and also recommended for proceeding against the complainant under Sections 182/201 I.P.C.. It appears that the learned Magistrate having accepted the final form proceeded on the protest petition filed by the complainant/informant and in the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. - 2 - from the materials brought on record , the learned Magistrate was satisfied that prima facie case under Sections 323 and 380 I.P.C. had been made out against the petitioners and , accordingly, took cognizance. The law on this aspect of the matter is by now well settled by a catena of decisions both of the Apex Court as also this Court. In the case of Chandradeo –Vrs. Prakash Chandra (AIR 1963 SC 1430), their Lordships were of the view that when a Magistrate has held enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. what he has to see is whether the allegations in the complaint are intrinsically true and satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to see whether the materials available on the record would lead to a conviction or otherwise of the accused. The Apex Court has cautioned that at this stage the Magistrate is not to look into any other materials other than what has come from the statements of the complainant on S.A. and the evidence of his witnesses and documents if any filed. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate having considered the materials , which have come on record in course of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. came to a definite finding that there was material enough to proceed against the petitioners under Sections 323 and 380 I.P.C. From the above, it is clear that there has been no illegality or irregularity or even impropriety on the part of the learned Magistrate or the Revisional Court so as to interfere with their orders. - 3 - In the result, there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) NKS/-