Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 14.10.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Vth Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad in Case No. 162 of 2010, (Vijay Kumar v. Smt Radha and others), whereby the Court below has summoned the revisionists to face the trial for the offence under Section 406 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of opposite party No. 2 namely Vijay Kumar was solemnised with daughter of revisionist No. 1 namely Sonam Kashyap on 21.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. On 26.2.2010 on the eve of Holi festival, Radha Devi, mother in law (revisionist No. 1), Ankit Kumar, brother in-law (revisionist No. 3) and Ram Kishore, grand father-in-law (revisionist No. 2) of opposite party No. 2 came to his house and requested him to perform the ‘vidai’ of Smt Sonam Kashyap. The family of opposite party No. 2 performed the vidai of Smt Sonam Kashyap. They also gave several articles of ornaments and Rs. 5000/- cash to her daughter-in-law.

3. Thereafter, Vijay Kumar, husband of Sonam Kashyap, went to her in-laws’ house several times with a request to send his wife back with him but the revisionists did not send his wife. On 26.8.210, opposite party No. 2 again went to her in-laws’ house but the revisionist No. 1 allegedly refused to send her daughter Smt Sonam with him and also declined to return the ornaments given to her daughter by the family members of opposite party No. 2 at the time of vidai.

4. It is further alleged that on 30.8.2010, Smt. Radha, Ankit Kumar and Ram Kishore came to the house of complainant/opposite party No. 2 and asked the family members of opposite party No. 2 to send Vijay Kumar with them otherwise they will neither return the articles of jewellery etc given to his wife nor they will send back his wife. The revisionists abused and threatened opposite party No. 2. On hearing the noise, people of the vicinity gathered and the revisionists fled from the spot after threatening to get him implicated in a false case. It is also stated that the opposite party No. 2 reported the incident to the police station but his report was not entertained. Aggrieved by the inaction of the police, he filed the complaint in the Court of learned Magistrate on 8.9.2010.

5. The learned Magistrate after going through the complaint and recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the revisionists to face the trial under Section 406 IPC vide order dated 14.10.2010. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has challenged the impugned summoning order on the ground that the allegations levelled against the revisionists and the statements recorded under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C of the complainant and his witnesses do not disclose the ingredients of any offence against them and the order impugned has been passed in a mechanical manner therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. He further submits that the present complaint is the counter blast to the application dated 31.8.2010 moved by the daughter of revisionist No. 1 to the Superintendent of Police, District Auraiya against the opposite party No. 2 and his family members in respect of his mal-treatment and torture by her in-laws.

8. To the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the impugned summoning order is just and proper. The Court below after going through the allegations of complainant and recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses rightly summoned the revisionists to face the trial under Section 406 IPC.

9. Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Lav Kush Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

10. The sole question for consideration before this Court is whether the refusal to return the ornaments, sarees and other articles, given to the d