Brijesh v. Rajendra Singh Chauhan and others), whereby the complaint filed by t

3. It has been alleged by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is husband of opposite party no.6 and she has pressurized applicant to reside at her parental home. The applicant has further alleged that on 19.02.2022 at 07.00 P.M. his wife called her family members and they have assaulted his mother and forcibly took away jewellery and cash of Rs.2,50,000/-. The applicant / complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and that a prima-facie case was made out but despite that the complaint of applicant was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 24.08.2023. The applicant has preferred the criminal revision against order dated 24.08.2023 but revision has also been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kasganj vide order dated

15.04.2024. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and submitted that a prima- facie case is made out against opposite party nos.2 to 6 and thus, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no material illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C., which read as under :- Section 203 Cr.P.C. "Dismissal of complaint- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing." Section 204 Cr.P.C. "204. Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be- (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."

7. Thus, it is clear that as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings with regard to the complaint case, after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section - 202 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding exist and he may dismiss the complaint. It is well settled that if a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it shows that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further, the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.

8. At this stage it may be stated that the complaint of applicant was dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 24.08.2023 and revision against order dated

24.08.2023 has already been dismissed. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 399 CrPC does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. In such matters, interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be made when there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court or the required statutory procedure has not been followed with or there is failure of justice. It is therefore to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process that High Court is preserved with inherent powers and would be justified under such circumstance to exercise inherent powers. In this connection reference may be made to case of Deepti aliasArati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 751, Laxmi Bai Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar Patel; 2002 0 Supreme (SC) 283, Dharampal & Ors. v. Ramshri; 1993 (1) SCC 435 and Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan; 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118.

9. In the instant matter, it appears from record that opposite party no.6 is wife of applicant and that opposite party nos.2 to 5 are family members of opposite party no.6. The allegation made by applicant / complainant that the said opposite parties have committed theft / robbery at his house lacks cogency and efficacy. In the alleged incident, no one has sustained injury. In his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the applicant / complainant has not even named the opposite party nos.2 to 5. It appears that essentially the matter pertains to matrimonial discord. The complaint has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate by a reasoned order. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Further, as stated above, revision against order dated

24.08.2023 has already been dismissed and in such circumstances interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS can only be made in case of abuse of process of court or grave miscarriage of justice or that some mandatory statutory provisions have not been followed. In the instant matter, no such contingency is made out. Applying the above referred legal position to the case on hand, no case for invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 'SP'/-

3. It has been alleged by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is husband of opposite party no.6 and she has pressurized applicant to reside at her parental home. The applicant has further alleged that on 19.02.2022 at 07.00 P.M. his wife called her family members and they have assaulted his mother and forcibly took away jewellery and cash of Rs.2,50,000/-. The applicant / complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and that a prima-facie case was made out but despite that the complaint of applicant was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 24.08.2023. The applicant has preferred the criminal revision against order dated 24.08.2023 but revision has also been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kasganj vide order dated

15.04.2024. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and submitted that a prima- facie case is made out against opposite party nos.2 to 6 and thus, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no material illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C., which read as under :- Section 203 Cr.P.C. "Dismissal of complaint- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing." Section 204 Cr.P.C. "204. Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be- (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."

7. Thus, it is clear that as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings with regard to the complaint case, after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section - 202 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding exist and he may dismiss the complaint. It is well settled that if a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it shows that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further, the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.

8. At this stage it may be stated that the complaint of applicant was dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 24.08.2023 and revision against order dated

24.08.2023 has already been dismissed. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 399 CrPC does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. In such matters, interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be made when there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court or the required statutory procedure has not been followed with or there is failure of justice. It is therefore to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process that High Court is preserved with inherent powers and would be justified under such circumstance to exercise inherent powers. In this connection reference may be made to case of Deepti aliasArati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 751, Laxmi Bai Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar Patel; 2002 0 Supreme (SC) 283, Dharampal & Ors. v. Ramshri; 1993 (1) SCC 435 and Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan; 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118.

9. In the instant matter, it appears from record that opposite party no.6 is wife of applicant and that opposite party nos.2 to 5 are family members of opposite party no.6. The allegation made by applicant / complainant that the said opposite parties have committed theft / robbery at his house lacks cogency and efficacy. In the alleged incident, no one has sustained injury. In his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the applicant / complainant has not even named the opposite party nos.2 to 5. It appears that essentially the matter pertains to matrimonial discord. The complaint has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate by a reasoned order. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Further, as stated above, revision against order dated

24.08.2023 has already been dismissed and in such circumstances interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS can only be made in case of abuse of process of court or grave miscarriage of justice or that some mandatory statutory provisions have not been followed. In the instant matter, no such contingency is made out. Applying the above referred legal position to the case on hand, no case for invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 'SP'/-