2025:JHHC:21746 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 104 of 2024 Mohan Rabidas, S/o Golak Rabidas, r/o Village Kharkabad, P.O. Barma East, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand ..... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jitendra Kumar, S/o Ram Ratan Singh, R/o Village Badaua, P.O. & P.S. Fatehpur, District Gaya (Bihar) 3. Jaideep Bhagat, S/o Suchit Bhagat, R/o Village Dhumri, P.O. & P.S. Dhumri, District Dumka, Jharkhand. … …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, APP ------ Order No. 04 / Dated : 01.08.2025. I.A. No.9894 of 2024. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid I.A. filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of about 197 days in preferring the instant Cr. Appeal (SJ). 2. The instant Cr. Appeal (SJ) has been filed against the dismissal of SC/ST Case No.63 of 2022 arising out of C.P. Case No.9794 of 2022. 3. Having gone through the statements made in the aforesaid I.A., the prayer made in the instant I.A. is allowed. The aforesaid I.A. stands allowed. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 104 of 2024. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant on the point of admission. 2. The appellant originally filed Complaint Case No.817 of 2020 against the O.P. Nos.2 and 3 under Sections 452, 427, 354(b), 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(x) of SC/ ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Act. 3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 02.03.2021 at 12 O’clock, both the accused persons entered into the house and assaulted the petitioner/ appellant. They also ransacked the property in his house. It is alleged that on 18.07.2020, Officer-in-Charge, PS- Dhanbad had arrested and remanded him into jail custody and illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- was demanded. After the complainant was 2025:JHHC:21746 released on bail in the cybercrime case, the said illegal demand was renewed. 4. On the basis of the complaint being Govindpur PS Case No. 141/2021 was registered under Sections 452, 427, 354 (b), 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (x) of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. Police on investigation found the case not true as on the said time when the incidence is said to have taken place, the appellant was present at home. However, the tower location of the mobile of the complainant suggested otherwise. Further, on the said date of occurrence i.e. 02.03.2021, the accused persons were on leave. Complainant was an accused for cyber offence and out of grudge the case was filed. 6. A protest-cum-complaint was filed by the appellant against the closure report, and after enquiry, the same was rejected against which the present criminal appeal has been preferred. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel that altogether four witnesses were examined during enquiry and all have supported the prosecution case and despite this, no cognizance has been taken and the complaint has been dismissed. 8. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned order. 9. Enquiry is not an empty formality as it is conducted by the Magistrate before a criminal prosecution is launched. It has been held in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors., (2012) 10 SCC 517 : 20. Section 202 of the Code has twin objects; one, to enable the Magistrate to scrutinise carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face an unnecessary, frivolous or meritless complaint and the other, to find out whether there is some material to support the allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate has a duty to elicit all facts having regard to the interest of an absent accused person and also to bring to book a person or persons against whom the allegations have been made. To find out the above, the Magistrate himself may hold an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer. 10. Significance of enquiry to weed out false and frivolous case has been highlighted in Pepsi Food Limited and another Vrs. Special Judicial Magistrates & others, 1998 (1) East Cr. C 171 SC, wherein it has been held that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of force. It is 2025:JHHC:21746 not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support the allegation in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable there to. He has to examine the nature of allegation made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinized the evidence brought on record and may himself put questions to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegation or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 11. Perused the impugned order. The instant protest-cum-complaint petition appears to be abuse of process of Court to wreak vengeance against the Police Officers by the complainant who was involved in investigation against the appellant who was accused for cybercrime. All the enquiry witnesses are close family relatives of the complainant. It has come in the testimony of EW-4 that the complainant had been arrested and was in judicial custody in connection with cybercrime Case. Other witnesses have also admitted this fact. The Criminal Appeal (SJ) being devoid of any merit, accordingly, stands rejected. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/ Pawan