Judgment:
ORDER
R.K. Dash, J.
1. This revision at the instance of the complainant (petitioner herein) is filed challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Salepur, dismissing Complaint Case No. 142 of 1992.
2. The complainant filed the aforesaid case alleging inter alia that on 25-10-1992 at about 5.30 P.M. while he was returning from Nageshpur Bazar with some medicines, the accused persons wrongfully restrained him on the way and questioned as to why he deposed in the complaint case filed by one Rumakar Patra and so saying they assaulted him. Local Sarpanch being informed of the incident, wanted to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties, but failed. Thereupon, the complainant moved the Court below by filing the complaint and put the law into motion.
3. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the complaint proceeded with enquiry as envisaged in Section 202, Cr.P.C. and on consideration of the evidence led in support of the accusation, dismissed the complaint on two grounds, namely : (1) that there was delay of nine days in filing the complaint, and (2) that the witnesses examined during enquiry were all chance witnesses. Learned Magistrate further observed that the case appears to be a false one which has been filed to harass the accused persons owing to previous grudge.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that in a case arising out of complaint, law enjoins upon the Magistrate to ascertain from the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of inquiry or investigation, if any, as to whether there is a prima facie ground for proceeding in the case. But in the present case learned Magistrate went beyond his jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint on the grounds as aforesaid and, therefore, to undo the wrong this Court in exercise of inherent power should pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5. Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') relates to filing of complaint and the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate on receipt thereof. It is everyone's right to bring an offender to justice subject to the restrictions imposed by law. Equally also it is the right of anyone that he is not unnecessarily harassed by false or frivolous prosecution. For balancing the two, Courts have great responsibility. It is for this reason that the provisions like Sections 200, 202 and 203 have been introduced in the Code. So when the Magistrate takes a decision either to issue process or dismiss a complaint, he should apply his judicial mind and pass appropriate orders. Judicial opinion is unanimous that where he dismisses the complaint under Section 203 of the Code, the order passed by him must be a speaking order briefly stating the reasons for so doing. But when he decides to proceed against the accused on being satisfied that a prima facie case exists he need not pass an exhaustive order on the required satisfaction. It has been authoritatively held by the Apex Court in the case of Dabendra Nath Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 1607 : (1972 Cri LJ 1037) that an order of dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 has to be made on judicially sound grounds. It is true that the Magistrate is not debarred, at this stage, from going into the merits of the evidence produced by the complainant. But the object of such consideration of the merits of the case, at this stage, could not be to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for procceeding further or not. The mere existence of some grounds which would be material in deciding whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted does not generally indicate that the case must necessarily fail. On the other hand, such grounds may indicate the need for proceeding further in order to discover the truth after a full and proper investigation. If, however, a bare perusal of the complaint or the evidence led in support of it show that essential ingredients of the offences alleged are absent or that the dispute is only of a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further, the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 203 of the Code.
6. Keeping in mind the above judicial dictum, it is necessary to find in the present case whether the learned Magistrate has acted judicially while passing the impugned order. As it appears the dismissal of the complaint was not on consideration of the evidence adduced in support of it. But because the witnesses examined by the complainant, according to the Magistrate, were chance witnesses and that there was delay in filing the complaint after nine days of the incident, a doubt was entertained as to the truth of the complainant's version resulting in dismissal of the case. To my mind the view taken by the Magistrate has no sanction under law. These are the matters within the province of the trial Court to consider while deciding the case finally on merits. In that view of the matter, the impugned order being contrary to the settled principle of law, cannot be sustained. Besides that the learned Magistrate while dismissing the complaint overstepped his jurisdiction and made observation that the case filed against the accused persons was a false one and it has been so filed with a view to harassing them owing to previous grudge. When there had been no appearance of the acccused persons and the truth of the complainant's case was yet to be ascertained, he ought to have exercised restraint in making such observation which has far-reaching consequence.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I have no other option but to upset the impugned order and remit the case to the Court below with a direction that the learned Magistrate shall on scrutiny of the available evidence led in support of the complaint, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.