In coming to a decision as to whether a process should be issued the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent 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 be a very thin line of demarcation between a probability or conviction of the accused and establishment of a prima facie case against him.
The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court or even the Supreme Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considerations are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry u/s 202 which culminates into an order u/s 204.
Thus in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside:
(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of 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 which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority or the like.
The above mentioned principles have been propounded by their Lordships of the Apex Court in the subsequent judgments as well, some of which are mentioned below:
1. State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others,
2. Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others,
3. Union of India and others Vs. B.R. Bajaj and others,
4. Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another,
5. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shri Pirthi Chand and another,
6 State of West Bengal Vs. Narayan K. Patodia, The import of the law laid down by the Supreme Court is that the High Court is under a duty while exercising its power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine whether the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or not or whether the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused.
Cases Referred
- State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp
- Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, AIR 1993 SC 892 : AIR 1992 SC 892 : (1993) CriLJ 600 : (1992) 3 Crimes 199 : (1992) 5 JT 213 : (1992) 2 SCALE 338 : (1992) 4 SCC 305 : (1992) 1 SCR 226 Supp
- Smt. Chand Dhawan Vs. Jawahar Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 1379 : (1992) CriLJ 1956 : (1992) 2 Crimes 342 : (1992) 3 JT 618 : (1992) 102 PLR 114 : (1992) 1 SCALE 996 : (1992) 3 SCC 317 : (1992) 2 SCR 837 : (1992) 2 UJ 46
- K.M. Mathew Vs. K.A. Abraham and Others, AIR 2002 SC 2989 : (2002) CriLJ 4111 : (2002) 4 Crimes 17 : (2002) 8 JT 248 : (2002) 6 SCALE 82 : (2002) 6 SCC 670 : (2002) 1 SCR 662 Supp : (2002) 2 UJ 1306 : (2002) AIRSCW 3500 : (2002) 5 Supreme 511
- State of West Bengal Vs. Narayan K. Patodia, AIR 2000 SC 1405 : (2000) CriLJ 1811 : (2000) 4 JT 269 : (2000) 3 SCALE 94 : (2000) 4 SCC 447 : (2000) 2 SCR 1013 : (2000) 120 STC 370 : (2000) AIRSCW 1136 : (2000) 3 Supreme 141
- State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shri Pirthi Chand and another, (1996) 1 AD 323 : AIR 1996 SC 977 : AIR 1995 SC 977 : (1996) CriLJ 1354 : (1996) 53 ECC 115 : (1995) 9 JT 411 : (1996) 1 SCALE 48 : (1996) 2 SCC 37 : (1995) 6 SCR 29 Supp
- Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, AIR 1996 SC 309 : (1996) CriLJ 381 : (1995) 4 Crimes 171 : (1995) 7 JT 299 : (1995) 5 SCALE 670 : (1995) 6 SCC 194 : (1995) 4 SCR 237 Supp
- Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, AIR 1976 SC 1947 : (1976) CriLJ 1533 : (1976) 3 SCC 736 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 507 : (1976) SCR 123 Supp
- Union of India and others Vs. B.R. Bajaj and others, AIR 1994 SC 1256 : (1994) CriLJ 2086 : (1994) 1 JT 103 : (1994) 1 SCALE 89 : (1994) 2 SCC 277 : (1994) 1 SCR 138 : (1994) 2 UJ 90
