The court can rely on specific allegations and findings of the enquiry U/S 202 Cr.P.C. to determine whether a case under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code is made out, and may not interfere with the order taking cognizance based on documents that are not in the nature of public document or undisputed documents.

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

The petitioners in the present case are seeking quashing of the order dated 13.08.2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1973 of 2012 (Enq. Case No. 185/2013) by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 379, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the accused petitioners.

2. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint case in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari; a copy of the complaint petition is available on the record as Annexure-1. The complainant alleged that her husband, after retirement from service of Indian Navy, purchased a piece of land out of his earnings and post retrial dues and thereafter constructed a residential house and also some shops. It is stated that the husband of the complainant had taken some loan also for running the shops and he was making payment of installments against loan out of the pensionary benefits which he was receiving. The complainant further alleged that her husband had placed his elder brother Ram Sundar Mahto @ Shikari Mahto in a cloth shop opened for him, the other brothers were also running their shop and there was no difficulty from them but the allegation is that from the cloth shop in which the husband of the complainant had invested the capital, during the life time of her husband, some payments were being made after accounting of the profits but after death of her husband, the intention of said Ram Sundar Mahto @ Shikari Mahto changed and he started misleading the complainant with dishonest intention. It is alleged that Shikari Mahto induced the complainant to give a sum of rupees one lac for purpose of getting employment of her son on compassionate ground, he also obtained signature of the complainant on a blank sheet of paper in the name of her being the guardian. It is further alleged that signature of her son Ram Tapsya was also obtained on a paper but he was not given any job. It is alleged that when the complainant was demanding back her money, all the accused persons were threatening her to kill her only son. She further alleged that on 15.07.2012 the complainant was ousted from her house situated in Kalyanpur but because of her weaknesses the complainant could not take any action. Again on 24.07.2012 at 8:00 A.M. when she went to demand her money, she was abused and Shikari Mahto caught hold of her by her hair and started dragging her out of her village, the complainant in the process got naked. It is alleged that the accused persons Suresh and Saraswati Devi gave her 3-4 slaps and took away one golden chain of 10 grams and cash of Rs. 30,000/-. Shikari Mahto further told her that she had already been ousted from Kalyanpur and she would not even be allowed to stay in this house. On these allegations, the complainant filed the complaint, made her statement on oath in which she reiterated her case.

3. From the order taking cognizance it appears that the learned Magistrate enquired into the complaint in terms of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the complainant produced as many as three witnesses. The depositions of enquiry witnesses were not attached with the Criminal Miscellaneous application filed on 28.10.2013, therefore, when the matter was taken up for disposal, this Court pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners that the depositions of the enquiry witnesses are very important documents which formed basis of the order taking cognizance, therefore, those documents should be brought on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for time and on oral prayer the matter was passed over at least on two successive dates giving more than a fortnight. On 19.07.2017, once again when the matter was called out it was found that the depositions of the enquiry witnesses were not brought on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that it is not possible for him to obtain