Point of Law: The words “sufficient ground” used in Section 203 Cr.P.C. means satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against accused from evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and not that there is sufficient ground for conviction.

ORDER :

The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the order dated 29.10.2014 in CMP.No.4069/2013 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The revision petitioner filed a complaint against respondent Nos.1 and 2 alleging offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468 & 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC before the Court below.

2. In the complaint, the revision petitioner alleged the following:-

Respondent No.2, a lawyer, and respondent No.1, the petitioner’s husband, entered into a criminal conspiracy, and in furtherance of their common intention, respondent No.2 filed a claim petition as E.P.No.347/1994 before the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 2.11.2004. The claim petition was filed in the name of the revision petitioner. The signature of the revision petitioner was forged in the vakalath and the claim petition. The revision petitioner never instructed anybody to appear for and on behalf of her in the Execution Petition. The forged claim petition was filed with the intent to take illegal possession of 2 cents of property that belonged to the revision petitioner. She lost 2 cents of land due to the acts of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The revision petitioner came to know about this only on 16.7.2007.

3. The revision petitioner filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Her statement under oath was taken. No other witnesses were examined. After appreciating the materials placed before the Court, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that no prima facie case was made out against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

4. Heard Sri.Manoj.T.N., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Manoj.T.N. submitted that the complaint disclosed the commission of the alleged offences and the Court is not expected to weigh the evidence to see that there was no sufficient ground for conviction. The Court is only expected to find out whether a prima facie case is made out or not.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri.Biju Balakrishnan supported the impugned order. The learned counsel contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint and in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations. The lack of credibility of the complainant, the sole witness, persuaded the Court below to hold that no prima facie case was made out against the respondents. Sri.Biju Balakrishnan further submitted that the lack of credibility of the complainant was considered by the District Court in A.S.No.160/2011 filed by the revision petitioner, which arose from the Execution Proceedings under consideration.

7. Under Section 203 Cr.P.C., a Magistrate may summarily dismiss a complaint if, after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the investigation under Section 202, he is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. The words “sufficient ground” used in Section 203 Cr.P.C. means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused from the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and not that there is sufficient ground for conviction. The sufficient ground contemplated in the section relates to the facts which the complainant placed before the Court and such facts showing a prima facie case against the accused. The Magistrate can take into consider inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations.

8. A Magistrate may dismiss a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on any one of the following