TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1948
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein and quashed the complaint filed by the appellant herein. 3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point. 4. By impugned order, the High Court quashed the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saran at Chapra in Complaint Case No.21/2012 whereby the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint filed by the appellant herein against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") by holding that a prima facie case was made out against respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the basis of allegations made in the complaint. 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Suit No.10 of 2012, in which the complainant has filed his written statement admitting tenancy in the said shop premises. The complainant has further asserted that he has been remitting rent of the said shop regularly and when he learnt about the transfer of shop premises in favour of the petitioners, the complainant has filed a Title Suit No.2 of 2012. The dispute between the parties appears to be a civil dispute. The relationship of landlord and tenant stands admitted by the complainant in the eviction suit. I further find that there are contradictions in the statement of witnesses on the point of occurrence. The criminal prosecution of these petitioners in the above background appears to be an abuse of process of Court." 9. On perusal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizance is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. 16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence. 17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of t....