Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MMO No.6 of 2008 Dated of Decision: October 17, 2008. Jog Raj and others. ..… Petitioners. Versus Kashmiri Devi. ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioners : Mr.Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Kumar Negi, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral): Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 9.8.2007 of their summoning under Sections 147, 148, 451, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned trial Court as accused in complaint No.77/I/2006 filed by the respondent. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that CW2 Anju Bala is the daughter of respondent. She was married to petitioner Jog Raj on 5.5.2001. During this wed- lock, she gave a birth to a female child named Bharti. Thereafter a dispute arose between them and Anju Bala on alleged maltreatment, cruelty and demand of dowry by her husband and his relatives. They alleged to have attempted to - 2 - immolate her and a case under Section 307, 498-A, 341, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against them. Jog Raj was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. It is alleged that on 13.5.2006 at about 9 p.m. accused petitioners Usha Devi, Rano devi and Sandesh Kumari visited the house of the complainant to patch up the matter and send Anju Bala to her matrimonial house but she refused. On this the accused petitioners got angry and threatened her with dire consequences. They also started beating the complainant and her husband. Jog Raj, Dharam Pal and Ram Paul caught hold of her daughter and pushed her towards their vehicle and accused Rano, Sunil, Sandaesh Kumari and Usha exhorted them. On this, complainant and her daughter Anju Bala raised alarm. They were rescued by Kewal Kumar (CW4), Ram Paul (CW), Swarna Devi (CW). Complainant approached the local police but they did not register the case as such the private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Amb (Una), was filed on 16.5.2006. The preliminary evidence was recorded on 21.7.2006, thereafter in his wisdom, the learned Magistrate sent the matter to SHO for enquiry and called the report. The police recorded the statement of the complainant and her witnesses and came to the conclusion that no such incident had taken place. It was reported that the complaint was filed in retaliation - 3 - because the parties were locked in litigation and cases are pending in the court. After considering the matter, the learned trial court passed the impugned order on 9.8.2007, reads as under: “9.8.2007 Pre:- Complainant in person with Ld. Advocate, Sh.R.S.Bhatti. Heard. Perused case file carefully along with statement of complainant and other witnesses. Also perused the inquiry report of police. Although the police has concluded in its inquiry report that the complaint of the complainant seems to be false, however, keeping in view the statements given by the complainant and her witnesses before the police and their statements recorded in the Court, I am of the considered opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against all the accused U/S 147, 148, 451, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. Accordingly process be issued against the accused returnable for 04/10/07 on filing of PF, list of witnesses and copies of complaint. Sd/- (P.S. Arora) Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-II, Amb, district Una, H.P.” As already stated above, the petitioners have assailed the order of issuance of process against them. Legally, the Magistrate is not bound to take cognizance as soon as the complaint is filed, even he can straightaway issue the process against the accused or apply his mind to the complaint filed before him and take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is always open to him to take cognizance of a complaint and dispose it of according to law, that is to say, according to the provision contained in Sections - 4 - 190, 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Where a Magistrate chooses to take cognizance, he can adopt any of the following alternatives: (a) He can peruse the complaint and if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, he can straightaway issue process to the accused but before he does so he must comply with the requirements of Section 200 and record the evidence of the complaint or his witnesses. (b) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an enquiry by himself. (c) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an enquiry by any other person or an investigation by the police. In case the Magistrate after considering the statements of the complainant and the witnesses or as a result of investigation and the enquiry ordered is not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds, for proceedings he can dismiss the complaint. There is no hard and fast rule as to when the Magistrate should refer the complaint to police investigation or whether he should enquire himself after taking cognizance under Section 202, Cr.P.C. If the Court is satisfied that the facts alleged in the complaint necessitate the investigation by the police and in the absence of such investigation, the material evidence cannot be gathered, then he can also direct the investigation as per the provision of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. - 5 - In the instant case, the Magistrate mainly after considering the preliminary evidence recorded by him found the sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused petitioners under Section 204 Cr.P.C. He had already complied with the provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was not a well reasoned and speaking order and there were material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and it was not a case for passing the impugned order. In fact when the Magistrate decides to issue the process against the accused persons, detailed reasons for issuance of process in the Zimni order are not required to be mentioned nor the sifting of evidence is permissible at that stage. His opinion based upon the material before him, is enough for ordering the process against the accused persons for the offences which prima-facie appears to have been made out. On the perusal of the impugned order and the preliminary evidence aforesaid, I did not find it a case for interference, as such, the petition is dismissed. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned trial court on 10.11.2008. October 17, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.