IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13361 of 2008 1. Satyendra Pathak, Son of Late Chulaih Pathak, 2. Jagannath Jha, Son of Sri Brij Nandan Jha 3. Surendra Jha, Son of Late Sada Nand Jha All , R/o village Awapur, P.S. Pupri, District Sitamarhi ……. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Smt. Sukumari Devi, Wife of Bamdeo Pathak, Complainant, R/o Awapur, P.S. Pupri, District Sitamarhi …. Opp. Parties ------ For the Petitioners : M/s .Rajeev Verma, Sr. Advocate and Vivekanand Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.B.S. Pahepuri, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : M/s Anjana Prakash, Sr.Advocate Durganand Jha, Advocate O R D E R The three petitioners who are arrayed as accused in protest cum Complaint Case No. C – 1 – 66 of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom including the order dated 18.2.2008 passed by Sri Harendra Nath Tiwari, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Cr. Revision No. 41 of 2007 arising from order dated 21.2.2007 passed by Sri Lalan Lal Srivastava, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi, in he aforesaid complaint case dismissing the protest cum complaint petition under section 203 Cr.P.C. By the aforesaid impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge while 2 allowing the revision has directed the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate to hold further inquiry either by himself or any other Judicial Magistrate subordinate to him taking into consideration the submission on S.A. of the complainant, the deposition of her witnesses as also the documents submitted by her. Sukumari Devi impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2 had initially filed a complaint petition on 11.10.2004 being Complaint Case No. C 335 of 2004 against the petitioners inter alia alleging that in the night of 21/22.9.2004 her granddaughter Neha Kumar alias Guria aged about 14 - 15 years was taken away by the petitioner no. 1 for watching a film on V.C.R. and when Neha did not return till late night the complainant along with her husband went to the house of petitioner no. 1 and found that Neha was still watching film along with the petitioners. It was further alleged that when the complainant asked Neha to come back with her the petitioners volunteered to escort her back to her house after the film was over but unfortunately Neha never returned. A frantic search was made for her without any success and the search was still on. It is also said that her old husband was sitting in the police station for the last three days in this connection without the police taking any action. It is also said that Neha’s parents live in Bombay. The complainant expressed her suspicion of the petitioners having kidnapped her granddaughter for ulterior purposes. The aforesaid complaint, as it appears, was sent to the 3 concerned Police Station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and on the basis thereof Pupri P.S.Case No. 146 of 2004 under section 366 IPC was registered on 14.10.2004 but after due investigation the police submitted a final form stating therein that the case against the accused persons was false and fabricated and the final form was accepted by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. It further appears that against the acceptance of final form a protest petition bearing no. C – 1 / 66 of 2006 was filed on 23.5.2005 and after holding inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri dismissed the complaint on 21.2.2007. From the impugned order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge it transpires that the father of Neha filed a writ application being Cr. W.J.C. No. 395 of 2005 before this Court in which a direction was given to the police to trace out Neha. This fact has not been stated by the petitioner in their present petition. It is also available in the said order that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 21.2.2007 dismissing the protest petition had discussed the evidence gathered at the inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. in a threadbare manner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner no. 2 Jagarnath Jha had filed FIR on 11.10.2004 bearing Pupri P.S. Case No. 130 of 2004 registered under sections 302/201/34 IPC against the complainant, her husband and her daughter, inter alia, stating that on 21.9.2004 at about 1 P.M. while 4 playing cards with his friends Neha came running bleeding profusely and gave out in the presence of Nagendra Pathak that her grandfather had beaten her whereupon Nagendra Pathak took her to her residence, where he was rebuked by the husband of O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 2 had alleged to have stated that Neha had disgraced them and she would be killed. They took Neha inside and assaulted her with lathi after the daughter of O.P. No. 2 had gagged her mouth with cloth to prevent her from raising alarm. It was further stated in the FIR that on the following morning the husband of O.P .No. 2 started saying that Neha was missing. It has further been alleged that the wife of one Kuleshwar Roy saw one tall rickshaw puller coming from the side of the bandh at about 1 P.M. in the night. Thereafter it was heard in the village that the dead body of Neha had been thrown in the river. This FIR has been appended with the application marked as Annexure 3. It further appears that husband of O.P. No. 2 Bamdeo Pathak had lodged a sanha on 29.9.2004 being Sanha No. 522 at the Pupri P.S. regarding the missing of Neha. The sanha had been appended as Annexure 4 to the application. The petitioners have also appended as Annexure 5 a copy of the petition dated 18.4.2006 said to have been filed by O.P. No. 2 stating therein that she does not want to proceed in the case as the matter had been amicably settled between the parties. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties I am of the opinion that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge cannot be faulted 5 since he is absolutely correct in observing that the jurisdiction of inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. is very limited and the Magistrate is required only to satisfy himself as to whether on reading of the complaint petition and materials available on record any prima facie case is made out or not. The defence or counter case has not to be seen at all at the stage of the inquiry. Reliance in this connection may be placed on the decision of Chandradeo Vs. Prokash Chandra, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430. 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. In view of the reasons assigned above I am of the opinion that there is no scope of any interference with the impugned order of the Sessions Court. Accordingly the present application is dismissed. The Patna High Court Dated the 17th April, 2009, Sanjay Pd. / A.F.R (Abhijit Sinha, J.)