Prima facie criminal complaint material and limited revisional review justified sustaining cognizance and process issuance.

A complaint disclosing specific allegations on its face can justify cognizance and issuance of process where those allegations, if proved, may sustain criminal liability. In revision, defence material first produced by the accused cannot ordinarily be relied on to quash the complaint unless it was part of the Magistrate's record and is of unimpeachable character; questions of genuineness and ratification are not to be decided summarily at that stage. An earlier complaint already quashed does not create a parallel proceeding or render cognizance defective, and no Section 202 CrPC non-compliance was found to warrant interference. The High Court's restoration of the cognizance order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in restoring the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and issuing process, and in refusing to rely on defence material produced for the first time in revision to quash the complaint.

Analysis: The complaint, when read on its face, contained specific allegations which, if proved, could sustain criminal liability and therefore disclosed a prima facie case for issuance of process. The revisional court could not base interference on a photocopy of alleged minutes produced for the first time by the accused, since such material was not part of the record before the Magistrate and was neither admitted nor of unimpeachable character. Questions of genuineness and alleged ratification could not be summarily decided at that stage. The alleged suppression of the earlier Bangalore complaint was not material because that complaint had already been quashed and no parallel proceeding was pending when cognizance was taken. The High Court was also correct that there was no non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 warranting revisional interference.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the Sessions Judge's order was upheld and the challenge to the cognizance order failed.

---