The issuance of process in serious criminal offenses must not be mechanical; proper evaluation of evidence and roles of each accused is essential for establishing a prima facie case.

JUDGMENT

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.9.2013, passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Agra, in Complaint Case No.109 of 2013, Layak Singh Varma v. Smt. Guddi and Others, under Sections 395 , 397 IPC, Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra, whereby the accused revisionists have been summoned to face trial for charges mentioned as above.

3. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Special Judge (D.A.A.) Agra with averment that on 28.9.2013 at around 10:00 AM, he visited his agricultural field along with Narendra Kumar and Kaushlendra. He found that accused persons namely, Smt. Guddi and others were engaged in constructing a wall in his field in illegal manner with a view to grab his field. When he objected to this, accused Ram Prakash pointed butt of a spade and Kishan Singh pointed out his country made pistol on temple of the applicant. The accused persons engaged in maanpeet and abused him. The accused persons snatched a gold chain, two mobile phones, one gold ring and Rs.12,000/-, kept in the pocket from the informant. Learned court below treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint case. The statement of the complainant was recorded before Special Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of witnesses Narendra Kumar, Rajkumar and Kaushlendra as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In injury report of injured Narendra Kumar, nephew of the complainant, 7 injuries were found on his person, which included contusion and abrasion. In the opinion of Doctor, injuries found have been caused by hard and blunt objection and their duration was two days old. The medico legal examination of injured Narendra Kumar was conducted on 2.2.2013 whereas incident occurred on 28.2.2013. Learned court below summoned the accused persons with finding of prima facie case being made out against accused persons named in complaint to put them on trial. The accused persons were summoned by impugned order dated 10.9.2013, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court by way of present criminal revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that there are lot of contradictions in the statement of complainant and his witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. before the court below. The complaint has been filed with false and concocted facts in malicious manner. The complainant has not examined all his witnesses in enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thus the court below has summoned the accused revisionists in violation of provisions of Section 202 (2) proviso of Cr.P.C., which provides that "if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath." The injuries of witnesses Narendra Kumar are found to be simple by the Doctor. His medico legal examination is conducted on 3rd day of the incident, which creates doubt regarding authenticity of the injuries mentioned therein. Moreover, injuries were found of simple nature in the opinion of the Doctor. The complainant has manipulated a simple injury case into a case of dacoity by introducing false version in his complaint. In fact, no case is made out under Section 395 /397 IPC against the revisionists. It is important to note that from perusal of complaint and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., th