Vijay Kumar Banka vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secu. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 14304 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

A.F.R.
 

 
Reserved on : 29/09/2022
 
Delivered on : 19/10/2022
 

 
Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6935 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Banka
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secu. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Paavan Awasthi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Tilak Raj Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3219 of 2018 (Satya Prakash Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar Banka and Others), under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, with a further prayer to stay the operation and implementation of the order dated 25.03.2022 passed in the aforesaid complaint case.

3. The facts of the case are that Satya Prakash Singh, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before C.J.M. Lucknow making allegation that he was looking for a plot in Lucknow measuring an area of 100 sq. ft. and in that regard he met the applicant along with his associates Rajendra Prasad Chaudhary, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Suddhakar Singh and Raghvendra Singh. The complainant mentioned in the application that he was shown a plot in Tiwari Ganj and was informed that the cost of the plot is Rs.4,50,000/- plus registry expenses and that half of the total amount is required to be deposited in cash and remaining half to be paid as per the convenience of the complainant. It is stated in the complainant that he deposited Rs.2,00,000/- in cash with the applicant and sought 15 days' time to pay the remaining amount. Thereafter, the complainant was contacted by the applicant prior to 15 days' and he was asked to deposit the remaining amount within four days with an instruction that in case of non-payment of remaining amount within four days, the applicants will sell the plot to some other person/customer. The complainant enquired about the plot situate in Tiwari Ganj and he was informed that the plot which was shown to the complainant was not belonging to the applicant, namely, Vijay Kumar Banka.

4. The complainant requested the applicants to refund the amount already deposited by him but the applicant and his associates visited the house of the complainant and offered him another plot situate at different location. As per the complaint, the complainant rejected their offer and asked them to refund the advance of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by him. The applicant and his associates gave assurance to refund the amount and therefore many times the complainant requested to refund the amount on phone but the amount was not refunded back.

5. Fueling the apathy of the complainant that even on repeated request the money was not refunded to him and one day the petitioner and his associates came to the house of the complainant with weapons, abused the complainant and threatened him to kill and refused to refund the money. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the complainant made a report to the concerned police station but his report was not lodged. Thereafter, he also made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Lucknow but that too in vain. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as complaint.

6. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and he supported the version of the complaint. The statements of Purnamasi Sharma & Mr. Brajendra Kumar, the witnesses of the case, were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. They also supported the statements of fact narrated by the complainant.

7. On the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow passed the impugned order on 25.03.2022, by which the applicant has been summoned under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C. which is being challenged by the applicant in the present application.

8. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire allegation is completely vague and fictitious and no offence as such is made out against the applicant. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the false and concocted complainant has been filed just to harass and blackmail the applicant and that too after a delay of more than eight years. Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that while issuing summons, the Magistrate committed error and the legal course of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. has not been followed. According to his argument, as the Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. provides, the Magistrate is required to postpone issuance of process where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction and shall enquire into the case himself or directs the investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purposes of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the petitioner is a resident of Gorakhpur but while summoning the applicant enquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. has not been conducted by the court below and without doing enquiry and investigation by police the impugned order has been passed which is wholly illegal. Counsel for the applicant in support of his submissions/arguments has relied upon the following judgments. [I] Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 528; [II] Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 610; [III] Kishan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Gurpal Singh and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 775 and [IV] Pawan Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2013 SCC OnLine All 13108.

9. On the other hand, Sri Tilak Raj Singh, learned A.G.A. has submitted before this Court that a detailed complaint was filed by the complainant and the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the complainant as well as the witnesses were considered and examined, thereafter summons have been issued. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that in the impugned order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow has applied his mind and while exercising his power, he has discussed the case of complaint in nut shell and thereafter summons have been issued. He has further submitted that the provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. has been followed while issuing the process against the accused because the Magistrate had got three options: (I) firstly, in case the accused is residing in other jurisdiction of the Magistrate, he will enquire by himself; (ii) secondly, or with the help of police and (iii) thirdly, in any other manner. Sri Singh, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently argued that the Magistrate has applied the first procedure and he himself has enquired about the factum of the case and once the order is speaking and his satisfaction is based on material, this is the enquiry done by the Magistrate because the Magistrate has no other option to enquire about the accused who is residing outside his jurisdiction, he has chosen the first procedure of enquiry that was done by him himself.

10. Now, I have to see the procedure of Section 202 Cr.P.C. as well as the various judgments relied upon by the counsel. In this regard, provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is relavant to be seen which is quoted below:

"202. Postponement of issue of process.-(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:

Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made-

(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or

(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200.

(2) In an inquiry under sub-section(1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath:

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.

(3) If an investigation under sub-section(1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant."

11. Counsel for the applicant Sri Paavan Awasthi has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Dhanuka and Others Vs. Najima Mamtaj and Others reported in MANU/SC.0251/2014 and had drawn the attention of the Court to para -14 of the said judgment, which is quoted below:

"14. It is evident from the aforesaid provision, every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the Magistrate or Court is an inquiry. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are examined whereas under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, is nothing but any inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code. In the present case, as we have stated earlier, the Magistrate has examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and the two witnesses and only thereafter he had directed for issuance of process."

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Dhanuka (supra) has observed that no specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. The court below is obliged to inquire into the case by examining the complainant as well as other witnesses and their statements. It has observed that the court has to proceed on the basis of the material available and if it is found that there is sufficient material, the court can issue process.

13. Sri Awasthi, counsel for the applicant has further relied upon a judgment rendered in Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 528 and has relied upon the relevant paragraphs 24 and 25, which paras are extracted hereinbelow:

"24. The essence and purpose of this amendment has been captured by this Court in Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj in the following words: (SCC p. 644, paras 11-12)

"11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates postponement of the issue of the process ''in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction' and thereafter to either inquire into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination is as to whether in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory or not.

12. The words ''and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction' were inserted by Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) w.e.f. 23-6-2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the opinion of the legislature, was essential as false complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places in order to harass them. The note for the amendment reads as follows:

''False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.'

The use of the expression "shall" prima facie makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The word "shall" is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context or the intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of the word "shall" in all circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use of the expression "shall" and the background and the purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate."

25. For this reason, the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to apply his mind carefully and satisfy himself that the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the enquiry conducted thereon, would prima facie constitute the offence for which the complaint is filed. This requirement is emphasised by this Court in a recent judgment Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420 in the following words: (SCC pp.429-30, paras 20 & 22)

"20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter.

* * *

22. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC followed by Section 204 CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment."

14. A perusal of the aforesaid extract shows that while exercising power for issuance of process in complaint case, the court has got three options (I) either the court will call report from the police concerned; (ii) or he will inquire himself; (iii) or by such other person as he thinks fit. In the present case the Magistrate himself has examined the case and has issued the summons. He has to apply his mind carefully by considering the statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses.

15. He has further relief upon paras 31 to 35 of the judgment rendered in Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 610, which is quoted below:

30. Under the amended sub-section (1) to Section 202 Cr.P.C., it is obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond its jurisdiction, he shall enquire into the case himself or direct the investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

31. By Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, in Section 202 Cr.P.C. of the Principal Act with effect from 23.06.2006, in sub-section (1), the words

"...and shall, in a case where accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises jurisdiction..."

were inserted by Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2005. In the opinion of the legislature, such amendment was necessary as false complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places in order to harass them. The object of the amendment is to ensure that persons residing at far off places are not harassed by filing false complaints making it obligatory for the Magistrate to enquire. Notes on Clause 19 reads as under:-

"False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that the innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."

32. Considering the scope of amendment to Section 202 Cr.P.C., in Vijay Dhanuka and Others v. Najima Mamtaj and Others (2014) 14 SCC 638, it was held as under:-

"12. ....The use of the expression "shall" prima facie makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The word "shall" is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context or the intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of the word "shall" in all circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use of the expression "shall" and the background and the purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate."

Since the amendment is aimed to prevent persons residing outside the jurisdiction of the court from being harassed, it was reiterated that holding of enquiry is mandatory. The purpose or objective behind the amendment was also considered by this Court in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another (2017) 3 SCC 528 and National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz and Another (2013) 2 SCC 488.

33. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to the accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint, in Mehmood Ul Rehman, (2015) 12 SCC 420, this Court held as under:-

"22. ....the Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C., if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C., by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 Cr.P.C., the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment."

(emphasis supplied)

16. Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra) has also pronounced the same dictum and the Magistrate has to satisfy himself after considering the statements of the complainant as well as witnesses and thereafter forming opinion whether offence is made out or not. In case the offence is not made out, he would drop the proceeding and if he comes to a conclusion that material constitute offence against the accused, he has to issue the process.

17. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered in Pawan Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another and more emphatically on Paras 12, 13, 14 and 15, which are extracted hereinbelow:

"12.The question for consideration before this Court is;

While discharging its obligation under this mandatory provision court how to act?

13. The perusal of provision give discretion to Magistrate either to enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. The enquiry contemplated prior to insertion of this provision was limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint:

(i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court;

(ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and

(iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all averting to any defence that the accused may have.

14. The insertion of provision was intended to put a safe guard to those proposed accused who are not residing in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The legislature found that false complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

15. To fulfil the intention of statute the Magistrate before issuing process after invoking this provision should satisfy himself that the complaint filed against the person residing out side jurisdiction of the court is not for his harassment. How the Magistrate satisfy himself must reflect from proceedings conducted by him. Therefore, a conscious decision has to be taken. Specific order is required to be passed regarding postponement of issuing process and for initiation of enquiry either by himself or ordering investigation, as the case may be. If the Magistrate decided to enquire himself he should put necessary questions with the witnesses and also to the complainant, like; identity of accused, acquaintance of complainant and witness with the accused, relationship in between accused and complainant and in between complaint and witnesses etc."

18. Pawan Kumar Yadav (supra) is based on same analogy. As per the this judgment, the court has to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and while summoning the accused who is living beyond his jurisdiction, he shall inquire either himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other persons as he thinks fit for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Magistrate while exercising his power under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. if he chooses to inquire himself about the person residing beyond his jurisdiction then he has to take a conscious decision which should be based on material available on record by a speaking order.

19. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered in Kishan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Gurpal Singh and Others and the relevant para 22 is quoted below:

"22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging an FIR, the court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In the absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an afterthought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the civil court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Vide Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh (1982) 1 SCC 466; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636; and Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. (2008) 12 SCC 531.

20. In the case of Kishan Singh (supra), the point of delay has been considered wherein it is provided that frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The proceeding for harassment should not be allowed after long delay. In the present case, the complaint indicates that complainant had advanced money for purchasing a plot and the plot which was shown to him by the applicant was not given to him and the complainant was cheated by applicant. The complainant requested the applicant that the money advanced by him be returned to him but the complainant was threatened and was asked not to demand the money.

21. I have considered the argument advanced by both parties and have gone through the judgment relied upon carefully. I come to a conclusion that while issuing process the court has applied his mind. The court has observed that the complainant - Satya Prakash Singh was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. who submitted that the applicant had come to his house along with co-accused Ram Khiladi Yadav and Pawan Kumar Sharma, on 15.12.2010 and took Rs.2,00,000/-. They had further asked the complainant to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- in an account of S.B.I. Bank. When he met the applicant to provide the plot he stated that his partnership had come to an end and he will provide plot to some other site, on which the complainant asked that he will not take plot on other site and he requested to refund his mind. Thereafter, the applicant disappeared. When the complainant filed complaint to police, the applicant consulted him. The complainant requested the applicant to refund his money but the applicant did not return the same. The applicant and the other co-accused intimidated the complainant and asked him not to raise voice for refund of money and keep his mouth shut. The statements of witnesses, namely, Purnamasi Sharma and Brajendra Kumar under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. was also recorded before the court which was also seen and taken into account by the court along with the aforesaid contents of the complaint. The process has been issued after getting satisfaction by the court. It cannot be said that the order is non-speaking rather it has been passed after recording the satisfaction based on the statement under Sections 200/201 Cr.P.C.

22. While court exercises it power under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., he has opted to inquire the case by himself. In the present case if the Magistrate has proceeded himself then what is the mode by which he can get satisfaction regarding accused residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The Magistrate while exercising his power under Section 204 Cr.P.C., has to see the material available on record filed by the complainant. In the present case the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which was available to the court. Thereafter the statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were also available before the court. He has discussed the statements of the complainant supported by the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and therefore the part of inquiry is complete. It cannot be said that he has not made inquiry. While issuing the process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., he has discussed the evidences of the complainant supported by the witnesses, thus he has not committed any error.

23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the court below needs no interference. The application is consequently dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.10.2022

Arun K. Singh

[Brij Raj Singh, J.]