Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi II, J.—Heard Sri S.P. Giri, Advocate for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. None was present on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to argue.

This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 22.5.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Dacoiti Affected Area, Badaun in Criminal Case No. 304/2009 (Achyut Kumar v. Kripa Ram and others) by which learned Court has dismissed the complaint filed by Achyut Kumar.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that Achyut Kumar has filed a complaint against Kripa Ram and one other under Sections 392/427/506 and 323 I.P.C. alleging that on 20.6.2009 at about 10 p.m. when he and his sister Sarita were at home, accused persons came into his house and took away Rs. 30,000/- from his house and a mobile was also taken and they were also assaulted by butt of the gun, knife and dandas. The complainant has examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Kamlesh and Vikki have been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Court below has dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no evidence to show that any application was moved before the S.S.P. of the district as envisaged under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. It was also mentioned that no evidence was produced regarding serious injuries. All the injuries according to injury report are simple.

3. It was argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order does not contain reasoned order. There are specific allegations against the accused persons. There was no occasion to drop the proceedings under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Lastly, it was argued that the Court has only to see a prima facie case as to whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons or not. The evidence is not to be evaluated as if the Court is going to convict the accused persons.

Learned A.G.A. supported the order of learned trial Court.

4. Before proceeding further it will be necessary to quote Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C.:

203. 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.

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.

(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.

(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87.

5. In the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1972 SC 2639, the Apex Court has held that:

“Under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence, either on receiving a complaint or on a police report or on information otherwise received. Where a complaint is presented before him, he can under Section 200 take cognizance of the offence made out therein and has then to examine the complainant and his