VIJAY Kumar Verma, J. - (1.) Challenge in this Revision is to the order dated 7-7-2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Case No. 140 of 2005 (Ghanshyam Singh v. Ashok Kumar and Ors.). By the impugned order, the complaint filed by the revisionist Ghanshyam Singh against (1) Ashok Kumar Shukla; (2) Balwinder Singh; (3) Preetam Pal Singh (opposite parties 2 to 4 herein) has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P. C.
(2.) HEARD Sri Ali Hassan, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record of Criminal Case No. 140 of 2005 carefully. Since, no adverse order has been passed against the opposite parties No. 2 to 4, hence, notices have not been got served on them, because they have no locus standi to contest the revision. The facts leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that a complaint was filed by the complainant Ghanshyam Singh on 12-1-2005 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti against opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, which was registered as criminal case No. 140 of 2005. It was alleged in the complaint that when the complainant was going to get the bank draft prepared for Rs. 20,000/- in the Branch of Union Bank near Pandey School, Basti by Jeep No. U. P. 51-C-9402 on 31-12-2002 and reached at roadways tiraha at about 1. 00 p. m. , one Virendra Pandey @ Manu got the Jeep halted. At that time Baij Nath Gupta resident of Gandhi Nagar was also going with the complainant. When after getting down from Jeep, they were talking and chewing beetle on road side, Ashok Kumar Shukla, who was generally seen in the showroom of Sardar Motors, came on motorcycle with some person and seeing the complainant and his companions, he sat in the Jeep and after starting it, fled away carrying jeep in fast speed. It is further alleged that Rs. 20,000/- were kept in the dickey of jeep. Statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 30-7-2005 and thereafter enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. was made, during which, statements of Inderdev Singh and Baij Nath Prasad were recorded as P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 respectively. After hearing the Counsel of complainant, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti vide impugned order dismissed the complaint holding that grounds to summon the accused persons are not sufficient. Being aggrieved, the complainant has come to this Court in this Revision. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the learned C. J. M. has committed gross illegality in making detailed assessment of the evidence and dismissing the complaint on the basis of minor contradictions in the statements of witnesses. Next submission made by learned Counsel for the revisionist was that at the stage of Section 203 Cr. P. C, only prima facie case to proceed against the accused is to be seen and the evidence led by the complainant is not to be assessed with a view point of conviction.
(3.) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and after going through the record of Criminal Case No. 140 of 2005 (Ghanshyam Singh v. Ashok Kumar and Ors.), I agree with the learned Counsel for the revisionist that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed gross illegality in dismissing the complaint. It is settled legal position that at the stage of passing order under Section 203 or 204 Cr. P. C, only 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 Hon'ble Apex Court that the Section does not say that a regular trial of adjudging truth or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage, for, such a person can be called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has been issued and he is on trial. 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 judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint.;