- (1.) In this Criminal Revision order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba issuing process under Section 204 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code) against the revisionists on the complaint moved by Respondent No. 2 is under challenge. 1. Factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that the Respondent No. 2 (complainant) moved complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J. M.), Mahoba disclosing that marriage of his daughter was settled with the Revisionist No. 1 said to be employed abroad. One Chiddu Saudagar and Kamar Ali alias Tillu Master were the mediators. The Revisionists made dowry demand of Rs. 5 lacs. The Respondent No. 2 paid Rs. 15,000/- in cash and Rs. 2,20,000/- through Cheque No. 636081 to the Revisionist No. 1 and his mother (Respondent No. 4) on the occasion of engagement ceremony held on 22.3.2005. Later on, as per choice of the Revisionist Nos. 1 and 4, the Respondent No. 2 got issued two demand drafts of State Bank of India, issued by Mahoba Branch No. 0519393110 dated 13.10.2005 of Rs. 1,60,000/- and No. 0512679507 of Rs. 60,000/- dated 14.10.2005 in the joint names of the Revisionist Nos. 1 and 4. The Revisionist Nos. 1 and 4 had returned the cheque drawn as aforesaid in their favour by the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 also got issued passport of his daughter to be married with the Revisionist No. 1 as per his advice. The Revisionists on 31.10.2005 along with the mediators approached the Respondent No. 2 at his residence and further demanded Rs. 85,000/- in cash and jewellery to be given by the Respondent No. 2 to his daughter at the time of marriage. When the Respondent No. 2 refused to fit in their caprices, they have broken the engagement and further refused to return the money of the Respondent No. 2 paid to them aforementioned. The revisionists and their relative named in the complaint thus have committed offence of cheating.
(2.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after having taken cognizance on the compliant so moved by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) proceeded in the matter as provided in the Chapter XV of the Code. The statements of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded under Section 200 of the Code and the complainant further adduced documentary evidence before the C.J.M. purported to be under Section 202 of the Code. The learned C.J.M. being satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the case appears to be warrant case issued warrant against the revisionists under Section 204 of the Code. However, the C.J.M. did not feel satisfied so far as the other persons named in the complaint are concerned, therefore, he dropped the proceedings against them under Section 203 of the Code vide the impugned order, under challenge in this revision invoking Section 397/401 of the Code before this Court.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 (complainant) and also perused the record.;