A Magistrate's order taking cognizance of an offence can be quashed if the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. Mishra, J. - This patition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in I. C. C. No. 54 of 1983 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack. On a complaint petition filed by the opposite party against the petitioner the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 28-2-1983 took cognizance u/s 420 I. P. C. and summons have been issued against the petitioner. It is this order of the learned Magistrate which is under challenge in this case.

2. The case of the opposite party (complainant) is that the petitioner was an old college friend of his. The opposite party had written a number of traditional folktales in English language and the petitioner had suggested to the opposite party that he had contact with reputed publishers in English with whom he could make arrangements for publication of the folk-tales which would fatch good money to the opposite party towards royalty as the author. The opposite party believed the representation of the petitioner and around the year 1974 delivered twenty-five stories written by him in English to the petitioner. A few months before filing the complaint, petition the opposite party came acrosses a book named "Indian Village Tales" published in England in 1975 under the authorship of the petitioner and in that book thirteen stories described in the schedule to the complaint petitioner which had been given by the opposite party to the petitioner were published, without acknowledging the authorship of the opposite party. According to the opposite party, the petitioner deceived him and not the stories published under his own name as the author thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 420 I. P. C. The opposite party has also alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner had committed offences under sections 405 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 63 of the Copyright Act. Along with his complaint, petition, the opposite party has filed a photo-stat copy or a lettter dated 2-10-74 alleged to have been written by the petitioner to the opposite party. The learned Magistrate recorded the initial deposition of the opposite party on 28-2-1983 and took cognizance u/s 420 I. P. C.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the patitioner has urged that the allegations of the opposite party against the petitioner and his entire case before the learnad Magistrate do not disclose a prima-facia case u/s 429 I. P. C. and therefore the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance under the said section must be quashed. Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party has, on the other hand, submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance the learned Magistrate is not required to enter into a detailed discussion on the merits of the case and therefore when the cognizance is based on a prima facia satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, there is no justification or scope for interference by this Court. In this context it would be useful to refer to Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, wherein the Supreme Court observed:-

" It is well settled by a long catena of dicisions of this Court that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or de-merits of the case nor can the High Court go into this matter in its revisional jurisdiction which is very limited one."

It was also observed:--

"....It is true that in coming to a decision as to whether a process should be issued the Magistrate can take into consideration in herent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations but there appears to b