Learned Magistrate vide order dated 9.11.2021, instead of directing for registration of case at police station, has treated the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. The statement of revisionist was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of witnesses of revisionist namely, Pradeep(P.W.-1) and Neha(P.W.-2) were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 5.3.2022. After the statement of revisionist/complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate called for a report from the concerned police station vide order dated 30.8.2022. The learned Magistrate has wrongly mentioned that the statement of Vinay who appeared as P.W.-1 and Ram Nath who appeared as P.W.-2 were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., whereas the revisionist had produced Pradeep and Neha as P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. The learned Magistrate has wrongly mentioned the name of Vinay and Ram Nath as P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in its order dated 30.8.2022. The police had submitted its report on 20.2.2023, which is based on the statement of Vinay and Ram Nath that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed on incorrect facts. The police report further reflects that the opposite party no.2 had lodged an FIR against the revisionist, which was registered as Case Crime No. 326 of 2021 and only to create pressure upon opposite party no.2 the present application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had been filed by the revisionist. The learned Magistrate had relied upon the police report dated 20.2.2023 and rejected the complaint of the revisionist vide order dated 13.3.2023, which is impugned in the present criminal revision.
