The court upheld the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. due to contradictions in witness statements and the absence of a prima facie case for summoning the accused.

JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. Instant criminal revision preferred against the impugned order dated 1.1.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area Mainpuri in Misc. Criminal Complaint Case No. 18 of 2019 whereby the complaint has been dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. As per office report dated 3.4.2024 as well as learned C.J.M., Mainpuri, respondent no. 3, namely, Meera Devi has died. Notices are served to all respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegation that applicant's son Mohit was married with opposite party no. 7 in January, 2015 as per Hindu Rights and Rituals and from the wedlock a child was born who was about 11 months. On 23.6.2017, some dispute took place between his son Mohit and his wife due to which his wife Akanchha went to her parental home along with her son. The opposite party no. 7 has mislead her family members and on 5.7.2017, opposite party no. 7 along with family members entered into his house and started hurling abuses and committed assault upon him. They started beating by kicks and fists. They also kept applicant and his wife forcefully in the corner of the room and snatched gold ornaments from his wife. They robbed ornaments of his wife and also robbed cash around Rs. 57,000/-. They tried to confine his wife and son in a room and also threatened to burn them.

5. The said application was treated by learned trial court as complaint case. The statement of opposite party no. 2 has been recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of witnesses, namely, Raj Kumari (PW-1), Mohit (PW-2) and Digambar Singh (PW-3) has been recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned trial court after considering the allegations made in the complaint and statement of witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint with the observation that there are material contradictions in the statement of witnesses and complainant. This is an admitted fact that an F.I.R. has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 to 7 as Case Crime No. 43 of 2017, under sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. The present application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 17.9.2018. There is matrimonial discord between son of the complainant and opposite party no. 7 who is his daughter-in-law. With these observations, learned trial court has dismissed the complaint.

7. Prima facie, the case is made out to summon the four accused persons for alleged offence on the basis of material on record. Learned trial court failed to consider the proper perspective of the matter and dismissed the complaint on the basis of presumption, therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside and accused are liable to be proceeded with.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 placed reliance on the averments made in counter affidavit and submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of complainant as well as witness recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. which has been duly mentioned in the impugned order. The present complaint is counter blast of Case Crime No. 43 of 2017 under sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act which was lodged at the instance of opposite party no. 7 against the revisionist and others. The prosecution version itself is unbelievable as it is unnatural that accused persons who are relative of the complainant, visited his house and committed house trespass, assault and criminal intimidation against the complainant and his family members without any hindrance by the family members and neighbor of the opposite party.

9. It is further submitted that there is no injury report which supports the version of complaint. The mat