At the stage of taking cognizance, the court is only required to find if there is material to issue process to the accused and whether the averments made constitute any offense. The court is not required to assess evidence, consider delay in laying the complaint, or motive for false implication.

1. The Petitioner challenges the order of the learned Special Judge, Puducherry, refusing to take cognizance on the complaint of the petitioner dated 19.09.2011 alleging offences under Section 294-B, 323, 506(I) 509 and 354 IPC as also Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. In rejecting the complaint, the Court below has taken into consideration all the documents filed along with the complaint. From the reading of the contents, the Court below drew a conclusion that the allegations of demand for bride was not found in the first communication addressed by the petitioner/complainant to the Superintendent of Police and the same came to be made after much delay. The stand of the Superintendent of Police, Mahe, informing that the allegations of the accused abusing the complainant was false and that of the Station House Officer, Mahe Police Station, were taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion that the complaint prima facie appeared to be baseless, motivated and an after thought. The appreciation and consideration of the material in the manner done is unwarranted when on the question of taking cognizance.

3. In decision reported in (1990 L.W. (Crl.) 141 (Mariappan v. Pannerselvam and either others), it has been held as follows:

“5. It is settled law that at the stage or section 203 Cr.P.C., the Court is required merely to find out whether there is any material to issue process to the accused and whether the averments made, constitute any offence calling for taking the case on file. At this stage, the Court is not required to assess the evidence to consider the probabilities or improbabilities of the versions of the complainant or evaluate the sworn statement of the complainant and witnesses, or consider any delay in laying the complaint or motive for false implication. These are all matters, which would be relevant after the accused has entered appearance and when the trial begins. Taking the averments at their face value, the court without adding or subtracting, will have to find out whether the ingredients of any offence are made out and if so, the court has to take the case on file for all those offences and issue process to such of those accused against whom such averments have been made.”

4. This court finds that in the instant case, the court below having received the complaint on 19.09.2011 has straight away found no merits therein under order dated 20.09.2011. The complainant has not been examined nor have the statements of the witnesses been recorded. A reading of the order reflects the position that the Court below has merely acted upon the communications addressed by Police officials. The impugned order cannot be sustained. It is incumbent upon the court below to examine the complaint as also the witnesses produced and take a comprehensive view of the matter i.e., taken into consideration not only the complaint but also the statement of the witnesses and thereafter arrive at a decision on whether a prima facie case is made out.

5. Accordingly, the revision shall stand allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter shall stand remitted back to the learned Special Judge, Puducherry, to act afresh in keeping with the observations herein above made. Registry is directed to return original complaint to the learned counsel for the petitioner.