- (1.) K. D. Shahi, J. The instant revision has been filed by revisionists Smt. Sushila Verma, Km. Rajni Verma, Hariom Verma, Vikas Verma and Vijay Verma (mother-in-law, Nanad, father-in-law, Dewar and hus band respectively of respondent No. 2, namely, Babita Rani Verma) against the summoning order dated 3-2-1999 passed by IIIrd Upper Civil Judge (Junior Division), district Bijnor in complaint case No. 11 of 1999 (Smt. Babita v. Vijay Verma and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, I. P. C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the instant revision arc that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint and gave her statement under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and also examined the witnesses under Section 202, Cr. P. C. On the examination of witnesses on record, the learned Magistrate summoned the ac cused persons finding a prima facie case against them. Being aggrieved by the order dated 3-2-1999 the present revision has been preferred by the revisionists. At the stage of summoning only the evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. is to be seen. At the stage of evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. the defence case is not to be examined nor the accused persons can furnish their defence at that stage. It is after the summoning order is passed, they may appear before the Court below and may apply for dispensing the attendance under Section 205, Cr. P. C. and may also apply before the learned Magistrate to quash the summoning order. In view of the ruling reported in 1992 SCRD 206-K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, in which it has been held that the order issuing process under Section 204, Cr. P. C. is an interim order and not a judgement and that order can be varied, rescinded or recalled by the learned Magistrate and the proceedings dropped, if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the ac cused. It was further held in this case that Section 397, Cr. P. C. too is express bar to the revision. At the time of framing of the charge as well, the accused persons can apply that there is no sufficient evidence against them and they may be discharged. But at this stage of revision, the evidence of the accused is not to be seen. The order passed by the learned Magistrate in this case does not appear to be illegal or incor rect on the face of it.
(3.) IT is true that the dowry cases are increasing day by day. Nobody can rule out that cruelty and harassment of the ladies have also increased but it is also apparent that if the wife is being harassed by her husband and mother-in-law or any other member of the family, then the entire fami ly including bachelor girls, old ladies and innocent family members are also being implicated. IT is the duty of the Court to watch the interest of both of the parties, therefore, it shall always remain open to the learned lower Court to release the accused persons on bail immediately, if the complaint has been filed purposely to harass them. IT is also always open to the lower Court to exempt the personal atten dance of the ladies and bachelor girls be cause after all these proceedings arc not meant to humiliate anybody. The revision was contested by the revisionists merely on the ground that a similar proceeding is pending before the Dowry Prohibition Officer under the proceedings of Dowry Prohibition Act. I have gone through the provisions of the said Act. The said Dowry Prohibition Of ficer can only make an enquiry. He has got no power to punish and the punishment shall be only by a Magistrate, therefore, proceedings before the Dowry Prohibition Officer of the same offence cannot be a bar for a regular trial in the Court. This revision has got no force and is hereby dismissed. The observations made above should not be treated to be an expression of opinion of the merit of the case either way. Revision dismissed. .;