1

Reserved on 01.09.2021

Delivered on 17.09.2021

Court No. - 78

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2572 of 2021

Appellant :- Ravindra Nath Pandey And 7 Others

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Ramanand Pandey,Pardeep Narayan Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Balram Mishra

Hon'ble Naveen Srivastava,J.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State

and learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

2.

The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned

judgement and order dated 19.01.2021 passed by Special Judge

(S.C./S.T.) Act, Sant Kabir Nagar in Complaint Case No. 96 of 2020

(Israwati Devi Vs. Ravindra Nath Pandey and Ors.) under Sections 323,

354, 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police

Station Menhdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar, whereby appellants-

accused have been summoned for facing trial.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants has sought to assail the

summoning order principally by contending that the statement of the

complainant recorded by the Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is not

in conformity with the allegations made in the complaint. Further, he has

sought to refer to the factual aspects of the matter and the defence, which

is to be set up by the applicants. It is also submitted by learned counsel for

the appellants that learned trial Court has not considered the evidence on

record and passed erroneous order which is liable to be quashed.

4.

Learned AGA on the other hand, submitted that the statement of the

witnesses recorded before the trial Court during course of the inquiry

under Section 202 Cr.P.C. contains particulars and fully corroborated the

2

allegations made in the complaint. It is also contended that the statement

of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. also cannot be said

to be contrary to the complaint version and the trial Court has passed the

impugned order on the basis of evidence and there is no illegality in the

order, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

5.

In order to advert to the rival contentions the provisions relating to

the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate upon taking cognizance of

an offence on complaint under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. up to the

stage of issuance of process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., are required to

be referred to.

6.

Section 200 Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistrate taking cognizance

of an offence on a complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and

the witnesses present, if any, and that the substance of such examination

shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the

witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. The object of such examination is

with a view to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the

person accused of the offence in the complaint, and to prevent the issue of

process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only

to harass such person.

7.

The object of section 202 is to enable the Magistrate to form an

opinion as to whether the process is to be issued or not. The purpose of the

investigation to be directed under this section is to help the Magistrate in

arriving at a decision as to the issuance of process. The broad based

inquiry by the Magistrate, as contemplated under this section, is with a

view to enable him to arrive at a decision as to whether he should dismiss

the complaint or whether he should proceed to issue process upon the

complaint.

8.

The provisions contained under sections 200, 202 and 204 and the

degree of satisfaction required to be recorded at this stage by the

Magistrate was subject matter of consideration in S.W. Palanitkar and

3

Others v. State of Bihar and Another, (2002) 1 SCC 241 and it was held

that test which was required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient

ground for proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for

conviction". Referring to the earlier decisions in the case