ORDER
Narain Singh “Azad”, J.
1. The petitioner seeks quashment of proceeding in Criminal Case No. 14/2001, which are pending against this petitioner and others, in the Court of C.J.M., Umariya, on a complaint filed by respondent and in which cognizance for offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC is taken.
2. As per certified copy of complaint (Annexure P-1), filed by respondent against this petitioner and 5 others, all the accused persons have defamed the respondent by sending letters to the relatives, containing this false allegation that the respondent has taken one Nandlal Pradhan, Head Constable posted at Indwar, for her husband whereas, the respondent comes in relation as Bhabhi to Nandlal.
3. Respondent herself and her witnesses Nandram Gautam and Rajesh Kumar Shukla have supported the aforesaid allegation of defamation in their statements recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.PC which are marked as Annexures P-2 to P-4, and on the basis of this prima facie evidence, the learned CJM has taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC against this petitioner and 5 co-accused by order dated 4-1-2001, marked as Annexure P-5.
4. After service of summon, this petitioner filed objection petition dated 2-11-2001, challenging the maintainability of the criminal case, bearing No. 14/2001 (marked as Annexure P-6), which stood rejected by CJM on 26-3-2002. The order of rejection is marked as Annexure P-7. Now, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court, seeking exercise of inherent powers for quashment of criminal proceeding in aforesaid Criminal Case No. 14/2001.
5. At the stage of taking cognizance, the Court has to ascertain if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case, therefore, a meticulous examination of evidence and the complaint is not required at that stage. The Magistrate has to satisfy himself about the existence of sufficient grounds, on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence, without weighing the same meticulously. The standard for ascertaining whether the evidence in the preliminary enquiry discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, is lower than one at the stage of framing charge in a warrant case, triable by a Magistrate.
6. Therefore, applying the above standard of assessing the case for taking cognizance of the offence in the present case also, the learned CJM is found to have committed no illegality in taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC against this petitioner and the other five co-accused even if the letters which are said to have been sent by the accused persons to their relatives, are not filed or produced in the Court by the complainant.
7. Therefore, in the absence of any miscarriage of justice, this petition does not merit, which is accordingly rejected at the stage of motion hearing.