Geeta Devi vs Prabha Devi

Surjit Singh, J.—Present petition, u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing a complaint, which respondent Prabha Devi has filed against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla.

Respondent filed a case, under the Domestic Violence Act, against petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 4, Shimla. Matter was listed for recording the evidence of respondent in that complaint. Petitioner was among the witnesses of the respondent in the complaint. When she came out of Court room, after making statement, she was allegedly threatened by the petitioner. Petitioner was also alleged to have hurled abuses. Immediately, thereafter, respondent filed complaint, Annexure P-1, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. Complaint, filed by respondent, was listed for her preliminary evidence on 25th March, 2010. On that date, respondent appeared and made statement on oath testifying the allegations contained in the complaint. Chief Judicial Magistrate then passed an order, summoning the present petitioner to answer charge under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears for the respondent.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue process without examining the witnesses, named in the complaint. She submits that this is the requirement of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded statement of the complainant u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that no other witness was present in the Court on that date. Complainant closed her preliminary evidence, after making her statement. Matter was then listed for 3.4.2010. On that date, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the order that there are sufficient reasons to issue process against the accused for commission of offences, under Sections 504 and 506 (second part) IPC. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not take recourse to the provision of Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure in the present case. It is not mandatory for a Judicial Magistrate for taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint, to make enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. If after recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed, he may straightway order the issuance of process u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure without holding any further enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the submission is rejected.

Next submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is not possible for a lady, subjected to domestic violence by her husband, to threaten another lady, particularly when the other lady happens to be Ex-Pardhan of the Panchayat, as the respondent in the present case is, and the place is crowded. May be that good and noble people, will not abuse and threaten anybody but this may not be true of everybody. In any case, such a plea is required to be proved by the respondent in her defence during trial. Right now there is nothing on record to prove such a plea.

In view of the above stated position, petition is dismissed.