- (1.) HEARD Sri Priyanshu, learned counsel for revisionist's and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present criminal revision has been preferred against order dated 28.11.2013 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahar, dismissing the application filed by revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. 1. A criminal complaint was preferred by O.P. No.2 / Ms. Sadhana wife of Ankit, alleging that a Hindu Marriage took place between them on 15.4.2009 in which her father spent more than 5 lacs rupees; gave gold/silver ornaments along with other items, which was taken / entrusted with the revisionists on the pretext that upon reaching Modi Nagar, same would be returned, but till date said articles were not returned; on the contrary demanded for additional dowry was also made for which Rs.50,000/ - was again given by O.P. No.2 to revisionists for purchase of a motorcycle.
(2.) THE O.P. No. 2 examined herself under Section 200 Cr. P.C. and Chandra Pal Singh (P.W. -1) and Suraj Pal Singh (P.W. -2), supported the allegations made in the complaint.
(3.) THE trial court after considering the aforesaid material, summoned the accused persons for offence under Section 406 IPC. Revisionists preferred Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.32499/2011, which came to be dismissed on 21.11.2012 on the ground that defence cannot be considered at the stage of summoning and that they would be at liberty to claim discharge at an appropriate stage. Pursuant thereto, an application for discharge was filed on 8.4.2013, which came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 28.11.2013. The sole contention urged on the strength of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2009 14 SCC 115 and that of this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.27223/2013 is that even though prosecution evidence had not been laid, discharge could be claimed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.;