R.K.Rastogi - (1.) -This is a revision against the order dated 8.6.2006, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Nagina, Bijnor in Criminal Case No. 304/2006, Kapil Kumar v. Vijai Pal Singh and others, under Sections 380 and 457 I.P.C., P. S. Nagina Dehat district Bijnor.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the complainant revisionist had filed the aforesaid complaint before the court below against accused opposite parties No. 2 to 5 with these allegations that his marriage had taken place with Beena alias Beenu and he was keeping her in village Alla Hedi, P. S. Nagina Dehat district Bijnor in a separate house away from his parents. Veenu committed suicide. Her father Vijai Pal Singh (accused opposite party No. 2) wanted to extract money from him after death of Beenu and when he refused to pay any amount, Vijai Pal Singh lodged a false report against the complainant and his parents levelling allegation of dowry death. Hence, the complainant and his parents were sent to Jail. Accused Vijai Pal Singh and his associates named Manoj, Vijai Barber, and Bhoorey (accused opposite parties No. 2 to 5) started to threaten the complainant revisionist's servant Amar Pal and asked him not to look after the house of the complainant and do his agricultural work. On 7.10.03 all the above named accused persons came to the complainant's house at about 4 p.m. and asked his servant Amarpal to leave the house and they took away the complainant's Motor Cycle Hero Honda Splendor No. U.P. 20G 1249 worth Rs. 40,000 alongwith its documents from his house. THEn they went to the house of his parents and took away 10 Sarees with peety coats, blouses, five gents suits, shirts and pants, 12 ladies suits Salwar and shirts, one pair of golden ear rings of his mother weighing one Tola worth Rs. 5,000 one pair golden necklace weighing two Tolas worth Rs. 10,000 one golden ring weighing five gram worth Rs. 2,500 one pair of silver Payals weighing six Tolas worth Rs. 3,000 and one silver Tagari weighing 20 Tolas worth Rs. 1,200. THE accused committed theft of these items after breaking open the lock of the house. Chatur Singh, Man Singh, Amarpal, Veer Singh, Gopal, Rishipal and Surendra etc., had seen them committing this theft. A complaint in this regard was sent to the S. P., Bijnor, but since two police constables of P. S. Nagina wearing civil dress were accompanying the accused persons and since Mukesh brother of Vijai Pal and Ajaipal is posted at Nageena Dehat as Home Guard, no action was taken by the police, and since the complainant was in Jail at that time, he could not take any action at that time. When he was released on bail, he came to know about the above incidents from the witnesses, then he moved this application before the S. P., Bijnor on 26.9.05 but no action was taken. It was, therefore, prayed that action should be taken against the accused persons. Learned Magistrate recorded statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr. P.C. Thereafter he recorded statements of the witnesses Chatur Singh and Man Singh under Section 202, Cr. P.C. After perusal of their statements, learned Magistrate was of the view that the statements of these persons were not reliable and a case of dowry death was already pending against the complainant and his parents and so the present complaint appears to have been filed as a counter blast to that case only to pressurise his father-in-law (accused Vijai Pal Singh) so that his father-in-law may not give evidence against him in the case of dowry death. With these observations he dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved with that, the complainant has filed this revision.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A., and the learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted before me that the scope of inquiry under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. is limited to find out whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons for summoning them or not, and the evidence adduced by the complainant at the stage of inquiry under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. is not to be adjudged on those standards which are prescribed for conviction of the accused persons. He cited before me a ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmaljit Singh v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1972 SC 2639, in support of his contention.;