AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out of Argora P.S. Case No. 385 of 2016, by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Additional Judicial Commissioner') and remitted the matter for passing order afresh. BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 2. Respondent No.2 (Informant) claims to be the second wife of one Vishnu Sahu (Deceased). Appellant No.1 is the first wife of Late Vishnu Sahu, and Appellants No.2 and 3 are their children. It was alleged that the deceased posing himself as unmarried about 25-30 years ago befriended Respondent No.2 and married her in 1990 at Jagannath Temple under Hindu customs and traditions and lived peacefully for more than 26 years. From their marriage (Vishnu Sahu and Respondent No.2), three children were born, namely Reshma Kumari, Rupa Kumari, and Vishal Kumar. It was pleaded that after 26 years, Respondent No.2 filed a written complaint against Vishnu Sahu and the Appellants which culminated into First Information Report No.385/2016 dated 27.11.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'FIR') under Sections 498A, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(iv) of The Scheduled Castes and the Sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only with regard to the challenge whether the High Court by the Impugned Judgment ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for disclosure of the prima facie material against the Appellants. 6. The High Court, by way of the Impugned Judgment, set aside the cognizance Order and remitted the matter to the Additional Judicial Commissioner to pass order afresh as in the cognizance Order, prima facie material against the Appellants had not been disclosed. SUBMISSIONS BY APPELLANTS: 7. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that Respondent No.2 is habituated to lodging false cases, as earlier also she had lodged Case No. 311/2014 against the Appellants under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 498A of the IPC, presently pending adjudication, wherein the Appellants have been granted bail on 30.09.2014. 8. Learned counsel contended that in the present FIR dated 27.11.2016, the allegations are totally baseless, since they have come nearly 26 years after the alleged marriage. It was further submitted that Respondent No. 2's entire case is based on the allegation that the land on which the house is built had been purchased by her father in Village Argora bearing Khata No. 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter in its entirety. Two basic issues arise for consideration. 14. Firstly, whether the Additional Judicial Commissioner while taking cognizance has to record detailed reasons for taking cognizance? Secondly, whether the FIR itself was instituted with mala fide intention and was liable to be quashed? 15. Coming to the first issue, we have no hesitation to record that the approach of the High Court was totally erroneous. Perusal of the Order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019 discloses that the Additional Judicial Commissioner has stated that the 'case diary and case record' have been perused, which disclosed a prima facie case made out under Sections 498(A), 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(g) of the SC/ST Act against the accused including appellants. Further, we find the approach of the Additional Judicial Commissioner correct inasmuch as while taking cognizance, it firstly applied its mind to the materials before it to form an opinion as to whether any offence has been committed and thereafter went into the aspect of identifying the persons who appeared to have committed the offence. Accordingly, the process moves to the next stage; of issuance of summons or warr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nto consideration improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. It was further held that: (SCC p. 741, para 5) "5. ... Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused." 17. In Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal [(2003) 4 SCC 139: 2003 SCC (Cri) 788] this Court, in para 9, held as under: (SCC pp. 145-46) "9. In determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ... At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence ... to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials would lead to conviction or not." 5. The order passed by the trial court taking cognizance against R-2 and R-4 to R-9 is in conformity with the law laid down in the above judgment. It is settled law that the power under Section 482 CrPC is exercised by the High Court only in exceptional circumstances only when a prima facie case is not made out against the accused. The test applied by this Court for interference at the initial stage of a prosecution is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish a case.' (emphasis supplied) 18. Coming to the second point which the Appellants canvassed before this Court viz. ....