Standard of proof at the stage of summoning order

It is a settled legal position that at the stage of passing order under Section 203 or 204 Cr.P.C., only a prima facie case has to be seen and not whether the evidence as adduced is to result in conviction of the accused persons. In the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal and Anr., 1973 (10) ACC 181 (SC), while considering the scheme of Sections 200, 203 Cr.P.C., it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Section 203 Cr.P.C. does not say that a regular trial for adjudging the truth or otherwise of the accusations made against the accused should take place at that stage. Section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials, there is in his judgement no sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint.

In the case of Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prakash Chandra Bose, 1964(1) SCR 639, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the stage of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction. Again in the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & ors., 1976 (13) ACC 225 (SC), while considering the scope of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the basis of the materials placed by the complainant before the Court; (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (c) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In that case, it has been held by way of illustration that the order of Magistrate issuing process can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused.

In the case of S.W. Palanitkar & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Anr. 2002(44) ACC 168, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the stage of passing order under section 203 Cr.P.C., searching sufficient ground to convict is not necessary.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the matter of exercising inherent power for quashing the FIR or complaint in State of A.P. vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah & another AIR 2009 SC 671. The following observations made in para 7 of the report at page 673 are worth mentioning:-
"When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process. Lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death."

The following observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of A.P. vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah (supra) in para 8 are also worth mentioning:-
"It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala faide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding."