Naheed Ara Moonis, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) The instant application revision under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 710 of 2015 (Rasik Raj Goswami Vs. Ghanshyam Goswami and others) whereby the complaint of the complainant filed under section Section 203 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is 'Shebait' in the temple of Thakur Sri Bankey Behari Ji Maharaj situated in Vrindavan, Mathura and the accused opposite parties are also 'Shebait' in the temple. The proceeding was initiated in the court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura who has imposed fine of Rs. 5000/-. To evade from the payment of fine to the tune Rs. 5000/- the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 hatched a criminal conspiracy with the help of the court clerk and prepared a back dated application dated 9.9.2005 on the dint of which they obtained fake stay order dated 19.11.2005 bearing forged signatures. It was used by them to evade from the liability of fine. When the applicant who is the complainant came to know about the fraud committed by the accused parties, moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to direct the concerned police Station to lodge an FIR against the opposite parties no.2 to 4 . The learned Magistrate vide order dated 19.5.2015 instead of directing the police station concerned for lodging an FIR registered as complaint case for recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C.. The revisionist aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate filed the revisionist before the court of District and Sessions Judge, Mathura to direct the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate order on the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to register the case and investigate the matter. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision of the revisionist holding the order dated 19.5.2015 passed by the learned Magistrate the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has rightly been treated as complaint.The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.PC. and also the witnesses. The learned Magistrate rejected the complaint of the revisionist exercising power under Section 203 Cr.P.C.. The learned court below has proceeded on wrong assumption of facts and law upholding the orders by which the opposite persons have got undue advantages while they have manipulated the proceedings in the court below. The accused opposite parties no. 2 to 4 have secured the orders by manipulation when no proceeding was pending before any court of law yet the learned Magistrate proceeded to treat the same as complaint. The order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. distrusting the statement made by the complainant has culminated into grave injustice.;