M.K.MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 15 -3 -2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, in Case No. 431/06, under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Smt. Anupma v. Devendra Kumar. By his application the revisionist had prayed for summoning Sub -lnspector Mukesh Kumar Mishra, who had submitted a report on the application filed by the opposite party No. 2 under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.
(2.) I have heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned Counsel for the revisionist, tearned AGA and perused the materia? on record. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Anupma Verma, opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the present revisionist. In the application she alleged about the harass -ment and the illtreatment as well as neglect of the revisionist and also that she was not able to maintain herself whereas the revisionist was financially sound. In that application she also alleged in para 14 that on 12 -11 -2006 at about 10 p.m. her in -laws including her husband came to her Maika at Moradabad and abused her and said that they would not allow her to live in their house unless Maruti Car was given. They abused and threatened but on account of inten/ention of some neighbourers the accused went away threatening to kill her and to have second marriage of Devendra.
(3.) THE application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was filed on 17 -11 -2006. The opposite party No. 2 also filed an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. against her husband and others on 20 -11 -2006 regarding the alleged incident of 12 -11 -2006. In that matter the learned Magistrale called for a report from the concerned police station and Mukesh Kumar Mishra the Sub -lnspector gave a report dated 24 -11 -2006 to the effect that the allegations regarding harassment and Marpeet were alleged to have taken place at Shiv Puram in District Haridwar which was beyond the jurisdiction of his police station Nagphani District Moradabad. The incident dated 12 -11 -2006 was not supported and the other party could not be interrogated in the matter for shortage of time.;