The court affirmed that a prima facie case can be established based on credible evidence and the legal requirement for the complainant to be heard, leading to the dismissal of the criminal petition.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 13.04.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Protest –cum-Complaint Case Number 1982 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 147/323/427 of the Indian Penal Code inter-alia against the petitioners.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly they caused hurt to the complainant by beating her, indulging in rioting and caused mischief by damaging the property worth more than Rs.50/- of the complainant. On the basis of the Protest-cum-Complaint Petition filed by the complainant, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case inter-alia against the petitioners.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dablu Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand , (2024) 6 SCC 758, the relevant portion of para -15 of which reads as under:-

“15. Xxxxxxxxxx

If such police report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate again has three options:

(i) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding, or (ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156.”

and submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by not considering the materials collected by the police during the investigation of the case. Hence, on this score, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dharam Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another , (2014) 3 SCC 306 para -36 of which reads as under:-

“36.This brings us to the third question as to the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate if he was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out to go to trial despite the final report submitted by the police. In such an event, if the Magistrate decided to proceed against the persons accused, he would have to proceed on the basis of the police report itself and either inquire into the matter or commit it to the Court of Session if the same was found to be triable by the Sessions Court.”

And submits that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by finding prima facie case for the offences as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that, true it is that, one of the options for the Magistrate if the police report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, he may accept the report and drop the proceeding but in case, the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drops the proceeding, then in such case, the same can be