IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10277 of 2008 1. Bhikhari Mian @ Ahmad Ansari son of Anis Mian 2. Lal Babu Mian son of Anis Mian 3. Munna Mian son of Anis Mian 4. Anis Mian son of Rasul Mian 5. Graib Mian son of Anis Mian, all residents of village Balihar, P.S, Simari, Dist- Buxar. ……………………………………………Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Bashir Ahmad son of Munni Mian, resident of village- Balihar, P.S- Simari, dist- Buxar. ……………………………………….Opposite Parties. O R D E R ---------------------- 4 14.09.2011 The petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order dated 6.3.06 passed by the court of Sri Satyendra Singh, J.M, 1st class, Buxar in Complaint Case No. 725(C)/05 summoning the accused petitioners finding prima facie case under Section 366A,354,120B I.P.C on inquiry Under Section 204 Cr.P.C 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that on the basis of the written report of OP No. 2 complainant Bashir Ahmed, Simari P.S.Case No.09/05 was instituted on 24.1.05 under Section 365 and 366A I.P.C against the eight accused including the petitioners . The police on investigation submitted the final form dated 17.3.05 with report of mistake of fact, thereafter on the basis of the protest petition filed by the OP No. 2 a complaint Case No. 725 of 2005 was registered and on inquiry the petitioner have been summoned through the impugned order while in course of investigation the polilce was found the case not true and in course of investigation the statement of victim Tawal Nisha daughter of OP no. 2 in was recorded 2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C which she had denied inducement and she was medically examined and her age was assessed by the doctor in between 17 to 18 years but the same has not been considered by the learned Magistrate and the petitioners have been summoned illegally. 3. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate on going through the complaint petition, statements of the witnesses arrived at conclusion that the case is not made out against accused No. 2,5 and 6( wife of Anis Mian, wife of Lalbabu Mian and wife of Munna Mian) while there is sufficient material against accused No. 1,3,4,7 and 8 petitioners for offence under Section 366 and 154 and 120B I.P.C and accordingly order to summon against them. The inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C is extremely limited only to ascertain whether prima facie case is made out on perusal of the complaint petition and statements of the witnesses for issuing the process under Section 204 Cr.P.C or not . It is not within the province of the Magistrate to go beyond the complaint petition and statements of the witnesses to look the defence or to look into the statements of the witnesses as recorded in course of investigation in earlier case as lodged and final form submitted in the case. 4. Under the facts, I find no illegality in the impugned order amount to abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly this application is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to raise the defence as raised in this application at appropriate stage of trial. Namita ( Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) 3