IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.29130 of 2000
MD. NAUSHAD & ORS
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
with
Cr.Misc. No.32013 of 2000
MD.NAYEEM @ LALLU @ NAYEEM MASTER & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
-----------
5/ 24.6.2010 None appears on behalf of the petitioners despite repeated
calls. However, I have heard learned counsel for the State.
The two petitions challenge the order taking cognizance dated
19.6.2000 passed by Shri H.N. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No. C-317 of 2000.
The quashing of the proceeding is sought on the ground that
some information lodged in respect of the same incident with the police,
as are contained in Annexure 3, did not divulge certain facts which
could constitute certain offences.
I have perused the annexures and find that certain allegations,
like, some assault being administered to the complainant or his family
members appear in those informations which were initially lodged with
the police.
Primary duty of a magistrate enquiring into a complaint
petition is to find as to whether any offence appears committed by an
accused. It is not necessary that he should specify as to what offence
appears committed. If he is simply satisfied that some offence appears
committed, even on some grave doubt arising out of the statements of
witnesses examined under section 202 of the Code of Criminal
2
Procedure, it could be legitimate for the magistrate to proceed under
section 204 of the Code.
Sufficient ground for proceeding does never mean sufficient
ground for conviction.
The petitions appear of no merit. The same are dismissed.
Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)