JUDGMENT
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. The order under challenge in the present revision was passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup, Guwahati, on 8.11.1994, in Complaint Case No. 954c of 1994 under Section 465/420/490/500 IPC instituted on a complaint made by the present revision petitioner. By this order, the learned Court below dismissed the complaint on the ground that no prima facie case could be made out against the accused-opposite parties by the complainant/ petitioner.
2. In a narrow compass, the facts and various stages, which led to the present revision may be stated as follows :-
(i) The complainant-petitioner instituted Complaint Case No. 954c of 1994 aforementioned, his case being, briefly stated, thus : The complainant is the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education, Assam and Secretary, State Madrassa Education Board, Assam. The accused — O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are the Lower Division Assistants of the complainant’s office, the accused – O.P. No. 3 is an Upper Division Assistant of the said office, the accused – O.P. No. 4 is the Superintendent of Singari Senior Madrassa and accused – O.P. No. 5 is an Assistant teacher of Buraburi High School. On being informed by the Supervisor of tabulation of the Assam Madrassa Intermediate and F.M Examination of 1990 of the said Board that a large scale manipulation of results had been done by the accused – O.P. No. 1, the complainant, as the Secretary of the said Board, acting under the directions of the Chairman of the said Board, cancelled the entire tabulation of the said examination and initiated action against the accused – O.P. No. 1. Out of grudge, the accused – O.P. No. 1 started making oral as well as written complaint and false accusations against the complainant. On 12.5.1992, representations were addressed to the Chief Minister of Assam, Minister of Education and State of Minister of Education, Assam, bearing signatures not only of accused – O.P. Nos. 4 and 5, but also of witness Nos. 4, 5 and 6, the representations so made having totally false, baseless, concocted and malicious allegations. The representations so made, thus, contained highly defamatory materials against the present. complainant.
(ii) On institution of the complaint aforementioned, the learned Court below examined the complainant and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and, then, passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint. It is this order, dated 8.11.1994, aforementioned, which has given rise to the present revision.
3. None has appeared on behalf of the complainant-petitioner. However, I have heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Senior-counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused – Opposite parties, and perused the record including the impugned order.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, what attracts my eyes, most prominently, is that the learned Magistrate has observed in the impugned order that the allegations have been made that the accused person forwarded a memorandum to the higher authorities revealing some allegations, but the out-come of the memorandum, so submitted, were yet not known and it was also not known whether the allegations were false or true. In this view of the matter, according to the learned court below, no prima facie case could be said to have been made out against the accused-Opposite parties. It was for these reasons that the complaint aforementioned was dismissed.
5. The law regard to quashing of complaints, now, stands crystallized. If the contents of a complaint, when read as a whole, and taken to be true and correct on their face value, disclose commission of offence, the complaint cannot be quashed. It, therefore, logically follows that if the contents of the complaint, in question, when read as a whole and assumed to be true, disclosed commission of offence, the learned court below could not have refused to issue process on the ground that it was not known whether the allegations, which the accused – O.Ps made and which, according to the complainant, were false, fabricated, concocted and defamatory, were really false, concocted, fabricated and defamatory or not.
6. While dealing with the above aspect of the matter, one needs to refer to the leading case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajanlal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court, on taking into consideration a large number of judicial pronouncements, laid down as follows :
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the code under chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines of rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised1.
(1) Where the allegations made in the First information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Whether the allegation in the FIR do not constitute a cognigible offence but constitute only a non-cognigible offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned act (under which criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal private grudge.”
(emphasis is supplied).
7. It is clear from a close reading of the principles laid down in Bhajanlal’s case (supra) that if the allegations made in a complaint, when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, make out a prima facie or constitute commission of offence, such a complaint cannot be quashed. As a corollary thereto, a magistrate also cannot, in such a case, decline to issue process against the accused.
8. A bare reading of the complaint, in question, reveals that the accused had allegedly made accusations against the integrity, fairness and conduct of the complainant. These accusations, according to the complainant, were false, fabricated, malicious and defamatory. In the face of assertions on the part of the complainant that the said accusations made against him by the accused – O.Ps were false, concocted, malicious and defamatory, it could not have been said that no prima facie case even under Sections 499/500 IPC could be made out against the accused – O.Ps. by the complainant.
9. Even if the representations made against the complainant had been accepted by the authority concerned as correct or true, it would not have changed situation at all inasmuch as the complainant could have still approached the Court with the grievance that the complaint made against him by the accused – O.Ps. were false, concocted, malicious and defamatory and if he could establish that the allegations made against him were really false, concocted, malicious and defamatory, the complaint could not have failed.
10. To a pointed query made by this Court, Mr. A.S. Choudhury could not submit as to how the said complaint can be said to have not disclosed commission of offence by the accused – opposite parties if the contents of the complaint are taken to be correct on their face value. Far from this, the complaint discloses commission of offence under Section 500 IPC against the accused – O.Ps. inasmuch as, according to the complainant, allegations made against the complaint were false, concocted, malicious and defamatory. Viewed from this angle, the impugned order is wholly mis-conceived in law, highly illegal, improper and must not be allowed to stand good on record.
11. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint is remanded to the learned Court below with direction to take cognizance of offence under Section 500 IPC against the accused – Opposite parties and proceed in accordance with law.
12. With the above observations and directions, this revision petition shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.