#w Wwiww-‘ 1 ”w a XI—HC-22 V %hq‘§‘«%wn,,.w M;- $4“m4‘”‘a1y‘ggmw i‘§""‘;:m~rwnwmmw.U m”w-nw m ‘1 In k)w i: w XI—HC-22 Relying upon the d(c1sions in the matters of Kailash V. Chaudhan and others Vs State of U.P. and another, 1994 l cri.L.J. 367‘ and~ c.v.; Go-nndraljulu’vs. R.v. Bhaskar and ‘ eithe‘ ' ‘ 1 93‘ 998 Cr L‘R it is argued that it is incumbent duty of the Maglstrate to t ke mto cons1derat10n the statement under Sect1on 200 of Code 'f the complainant on oath and that ‘ " of all the w1tnesses and re ult of the enqulry referred to under Section ‘203 of the Code before registering the complaint. ’ However, in the instant ca e despite there being a categorical report: fro’mv the policeith t a frivolous complaint has been lodged by the 'COmplainan [as a defence because there is a the trial Court has not considered the report submitted the in esti'gating'lofficer. counsel for the applicants and perused the orders passed y both the Courts below. The complaint has b en filed with an allegation that on the report of Wife of comp ainant a rape case was registered against some Rajkumar 'd allegations against“ the present applicants in the complain is that they were pressurizing the complainant and his Wife to enter into a compromise with Rajkurnar Sahu, who hap ened to be Sarpanch of the village and when theydid not agre to the proposition, they committed the alleged offence. The is allegation that the matter was criminal case against him, .Ji‘; 1 ww“aw,a. aw«r ma -‘ lmtWn‘‘mwmnv-m-mnw mmmi ‘ ‘- ors‘ , r . XIvHC-22 wws‘‘wrnw«wv mar u w- v - »w.p wwgummu,mm"wv . a w"K ‘ 1 ‘ reported to the police sta on as also to the Supermtend of Police. However, when no a tlon was taken, the said complaint was lodged The Maglstrate af gomg through the complamt statement under Sect10n 2 O of the Code and also cons1der1ng . the police report has recor ed a satlsfaction that offence under ,Sections 506B 8a 323/34 is made out against the accused > persons and d1rected 1ss ance of proceSS The rev1sion ;preferred by the apphcan s has also been rejected Wlth a v detailed and reasoned orde by the learned Addltional Sess1ons Judge, Bemetara The S H . after recordlng statements of the accused persons has su 1tted a report of Annexure A/2 Wlthout maklng any enq 1ry from the complalnant or hls w1tnesses whlch on the fac of 1t 1s based on a forge enquu'y So far as arguments ased on the judgment in the matter a) that the tr1a1 Court has not set of Katlash Chaudhan (sup out the allegatlons made {n the complamt and the matenal brought on record before‘ reglsterlng offence and orderlng iSSuance of process, [is concerned, the trial Court, in the instant case, has referred to the complaint in its order and after perusal of the complaint, statement of the complainant and his Witnesses and pclice report of Annexure A/2, has XI-HC-22 :"wamw;:a‘v-.‘=r-v - found‘sufflcient grounds for proceedings under Sections 506B, _' 323/34 of IPC’Vag'ainst the applicants. _ So far as arguments based on the'judgment in the matter of C V Govindrajuluv’vis ooncerned, as already pointed out that report of ‘ Annexure A] 2' v} without conducting enqu Witnesses, only On the ba: and therefore, the Courts t ' report; in the’light of orders this Court is. of the conside quashing of the charge or above complaint is called for jurisdiction. Even othervvi garb of petition under Se entertained’in View of bar Code. I ‘ Accordingly, the i1 substance as also not mai at the admission stage itsel Lmmmnw‘w‘miizsgnanii'-‘ I las been submitted by the S.H.O. ry from the complainant or, his .is of statementsvof the applicants, elow have rightly ignored the above passed by both the Courts below, red opinion that no interference for prosecution’of the applicants in the in exercise of inherent se, second criminal revision in the ‘ction 482 of the Code cannot be contained in Section 397(3) of the / Mishra Dhirendfa r% Judge 1stant petition being devoid of itainable, deserves to be dismissed {and is herebydW v w /