@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Manoj Misra, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. By the present application, the applicants,
who are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant (opposite party No. 2), have sought quashing of the proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 48 of 2013 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Orai, District Jalaun, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotra, District Jalaun.
2. A perusal of the complaint, and paragraph 4 in particular, disclose the involvement of the applicants in commission of the offences for which they
have been summoned. There is an injury report also to support the allegations. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance on the complaint
proceeded to hold an inquiry by recording statement of the complainant u/s 200 and of the witnesses u/s 202, Cr.P.C. to ascertain whether or not
there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. After considering the allegations, the injury report and the statements recorded under
sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate recorded satisfaction with regards to existence of a prima facie case to proceed against the
applicants and, accordingly, summoned the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P.
Act.
3. Challenging the proceedings, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as the applicants, who are the accused, reside outside the
jurisdiction of the Court, where cognizance has been taken, therefore, before issuing process the learned Magistrate ought to have himself inquired
or to have directed an investigation for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It has
been submitted that by virtue of amendment of sub-section (1) of section 202, by Act No. 25 of 2005, with effect from 23.06.2006, in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, such an inquiry is mandatory and in absence thereof, the order issuing process stands vitiated. In support of the said
submission, reliance has been placed on decisions of the Apex Court in the case of National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and
Another, and K.T. Joseph Vs. State of Kerala and Another, The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in absence of
clear and specific allegation against the father-in-law and the mother-in-law they ought not to have been summoned by the learned Magistrate in
view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another,
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.
5. The first submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is completely misconceived, inasmuch as, the learned Magistrate has himself held
an inquiry by recording statement on oath of the complainant and her witnesses Vinay Mishra and Gaya Prasad, under sections 200 and 202,
Cr.P.C. respectively, which are on record as Annexure Nos. 3, 4 and 5. It is only after recording the statements, and consideration of the same
along with injury report, the learned Magistrate drew satisfaction with regards to existence of a prima facie case for proceeding against the
applicants and has summoned them accordingly.
6. The term inquiry as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 202 is a pre-trial inquiry, as would be clear from Section 2(g) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which defines inquiry as every inquiry, other than trial, conducted under the Code by a Magistrate or Court. In Hardeep Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and Others etc. etc., , in para 117.2 of the report, the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court observed that inquiries under
Sections 200, 201, 202, Cr.P.C., and u/s 398, Cr.P.C. are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319, Cr.P.C. It was observed that
materials coming before the court in course of such inquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial
commences, for the exercise of power u/s 319, Cr.P.C., and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-
sheet. In Vasanti Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Apex Court, in paragraph 29 of the report, observed that while in a case based on
police report, the court while taking cognizance will straightaway examine whether a prima facie case is made out or not and will not enter into the
correctness of the allegation levelled in the FIR, whereas a complaint case requires an enquiry by the Magistrate u/s 200, Cr.P.C. if he takes
cognizance of the complaint. In case he refuses to take cognizance he may either dismiss the complaint or direct the investigating agency to enter
into further investigation. In case he does not exercise either of these two options, he will have to proceed with the enquiry himself as envisaged
and enumerated u/s 200, Cr.P.C. From above, it is clear that recording of statement u/s 200, Cr.P.C. or u/s 202, Cr.P.C., is nothing but a part of
the pre-trial inquiry. Accordingly, where the Magistrate records the statement of the complainant u/s 200, Cr.P.C. and, if required, of the witnesses
u/s 202, Cr.P.C. and proceeds to consider them, along with other material, if produced, for ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out to
proceed against the accused, and records a satisfaction to that effect, there is sufficient compliance of the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of
Section 202 of the Code. Process issued to an accused residing out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, after following the aforesaid
procedure is not vitiated in any manner.
7. As in the instant case, the process has been issued after recording the statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses as also after
recording satisfaction with regards to existence of a prima facie case against the accused, upon consideration of the statements so recorded as also
the material brought on record, it cannot be said that there was no compliance of the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 202 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is concerned, the same cannot be accepted as there are allegations
against all the accused who are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. As the complaint allegations and the statements
made in support thereof as also the injury report do make out a prima facie case to proceed against the applicants neither the summoning order nor
the consequential proceedings can be quashed. The prayer of the applicant to that extent is therefore rejected.
9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that a simple matrimonial discord between husband and wife has been given color
of a dowry case. It has been submitted that subsequent to filing of the complaint, the husband (the applicant No. 1) filed a petition for restitution of
conjugal rights, which was decreed ex parte, thereby disclosing that the complainant had no justifiable cause to live separate. It has been submitted
that the complaint allegations are nothing but false.
10. Be that as it may, the veracity of the allegations cannot be tested at this stage, inasmuch as, at this stage, the allegations are to be taken at their
given face value. And since from the complaint allegations and the material in support thereof a prima facie case to proceed against the applicants is
made out the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby provided
that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, within a period of four weeks from today, their bail
application shall be considered in accordance with law laid down in the case of Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., decided by a
Full Bench of this Court, which has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, With the aforesaid observations/directions, the application stands disposed of.
