IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33001 of 2007 MD.NASIRUDDIN Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3 12.11.2008 Heard Mr. Ram Sankar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P. for the State. The complainant was duly served with notice but has chosen not to appear. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 27.1.2006 passed by Sri S. Rajak, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, in Compliant Case No. 386 of 2005, whereby he has taken cognizance for offences under section 384 I.P.C. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that prior to this filing of this complaint his father has filed complaint and the same is pending after taking cognizance. The further submission is that there is no medical report or evidence of independent witnesses to support the complainant’s case. So far as the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner , the father of the petitioner having filed a complaint petition against the complainant herein and the pendency thereof is concerned the same happens to be his defence and cannot be looked into at this stage in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. So far as the question of no case having been made out against the petitioner is concerned one needs to refer to the case of Chandradeo Vs. Prokash Chandra, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430. - 2 - Their Lordships have in specific and categoric terms observed that since the object of an inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true, the Magistrate acting under section 203 Cr.P.C. has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding. In order to come to this conclusion he is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him or recorded by him in an inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. and he is not entitled to rely upon any other material besides this. Where there is prima facie evidence even though an accused may have a defence that the offence is committed by some other person or persons, the matter has to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of process cannot be refused. In view of the categoric observation of the Apex Court I find no iota of merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)