JUDGMENT
L. Rath, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court in revision seeking reversal of the order passed by the S. D. J. M. refusing to take cognisance and issue process against the opp. party Under Section 376/406, IPC, on the complaint filed by her. lt was her case that she was called by the opp. party to his house on the pretext of his wife having called her but reaching there she found the wife of the opp party to be absent. The opp. party forcibly raped her and thereafter took her to the hospital on the apprehension of she hiving conceived and thereafter again raped her. The contact between the parties continued the opp. party having promised the petitioner to marry her and it is alleged that the opp. party thereafter persuaded the petitioner to bring Rs. 2,000/- and a necklace. Information lodged by the father of the petitioner and police rescued the petitioner from the house of the opp. party. It was the further complaint case that the petitioner and the opp. party had been to the Registrar of Marriages, but the wife of the opp. party having filed a suit, the registration could not take place. The petitioner was examined by the learned Magistrate Under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and in the enquiry Under Section 202, Cr. P. C. seven witnesses were examined including the parents of the petitioner. In her staternent the petitioner stated that about a year back the opp. parry had called her in the manner as alleged in the complaint petition and committed the offence. She also otherwise corroborated her statement in the complaint petition. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the complaint petition, the statement of the petitioner and the statements of the witnesses held the petitioner to be a minor on the date of filing of the complaint but disbelieved the story as alleged by her and finding no prima facie case having been made out Under Section 376/406 IPC refused to proceed against the opp party.
2. Law is far too well settled now that at the time of taking cognizance and issuing process on a complaint made before the Magistrate, the accused has no locus standi and that the only jurisdiction of the Magistrate is to examine the case from the point of view of the complainant as to whether a prima facie case has been made out so as to set in motion the criminal process against the accused. He has to examine the statement of the complainant and the evidence of the witnesses if an enquiry is held, but not with a view to be satisfied that on such evidence and statements, a conviction must result. The only scope of examination at that stage is as to the existence of a prima facie case which would largely depend on the nature of the allegations made. If however on the acceptance of the complainant’s case as a whole no case is made out, which concept shall take within it the concept of the complainant’s case as developed being thoroughly absurd or inherently improbable, no prima facia case must be taken to have been made out and hence the Court would be justified in refusing to issue process. So far as the present case is concerned, admittedly the petitioner being a minor, her consent if any was immaterial with regard to an offence Under Section 376, IPC. The learned Magistrate himself found that the statement of the petitioner was in consonance with the story given by her in the complaint petition except slight differences here and there. He however rejected the complaint case on the following grounds’:
(1) In view of the allegations made in the complaint petition, the petitioner was subjected to sexual intercourse on various occasions but she was not able to give the specific dates. It was at least not impossible for her to give the particular date on which she was rescued from the house of the opp party.
(2) If the petitioner was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse for the first time, it is impossible to accept that she did not disclose this fact to her parents on the threat of the accused and also that the bleeding from her private parts went unnoticed by her mother.
(3) It is also improbable that after the first incident the petitioner allowed herself with her free consent to be enjoyed by the opp. party at different places. Rather she should have maintained long distance from the opp. party after that incident.
(4) The actual taking of Rs. Rs. 2,000/- and a gold necklace by the petitioner to the house of the opp. party is not revealed from the statement. of PW 2. It is also not possible to believe that the petitioner had counted only Rs. 2.000/-‘ and neither less nor more as if she was instructed by the petitioner to leave her house only with a cash of Rs. 2,000/-.
(5) There is no concrete materials to show from the testimony of P Ws 2, 4 and 7 as to where the gold necklace and the cash had been kept.
(6) The statement of PW 6 that immediately after she was detceted in the house of the accused she expressed before PWs 3, 4 and 7 of having been subjected to sexual intercourse against her will is not free from suspicion as she was stated to have been given full assurance by the opp. party to be kept as his wife and on that promise she had left the house.
3. The reasonings as advanced by the learned S. D. J. M. extracted above would show that he has deeply entered in the realm of conjectures to throw out the complainant’s case. Such reasonings are not within his province. The petitioner’s case could not have been thrown out at the threshold merely on suspicion and improbabilities based upon conjectures. Undoubtedly the allegations in the complaint petition make out a prima facie case A detailed analysis of the evidence and reaching, conclusion at the stage of taking cognizance was not called for. The order shows that the learned Magistrate was thoroughly misdirected in law and because of such wrong approach, he reached the conclusion of not proceeding with the case.
4. In that view of the matter, the order dated 27-10-1990 in Case No ICC 27 of 1990 of the S. D. J M., Sonepur is set aside and the case is. remanded to him. The Magistrate is directed to issue process against the opp. party and proceed in accordance with low.