JUDGMENT D.K. Trivedi, J.
1. The present revision bas been filed by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 20-10-1992, passed by the Ist Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, by which he summoned the revisionists under Section 498A I.P.C. end Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is not disputed that Police has submitted charge-sheet against two of the persons namely, Ali Shabbar and All Mazhar, Police also submitted a final report against the two revisionists before the court concerned and on receipt of the same the complainant moved protest application and also filed affidavits of Binte Johra, Amir Raza, Shafiful Hasan and Shafiq Raider. The learned Magistrate, after considering the Police report as well as the affidavit filled by the witnesses, mentioned above, passed the impugned order, summoning the revisionists under Section 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The main contention of the revisionists Counsel is that the learned court below committed an error in summoning the revisionists under Section 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the basis of affidavit filed by the witnesses. It is fettled law that upon receipt of the Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. that no case is made out against the revisionists, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence, ignoring the conclusion arrived at by the Police. The Magistrate has a right to apply hit mind to the fact and statement of the witnesses, recorded by the Investigating Officer. The Magistrate has jurisdiction in consider all the papers submitted by the Police and thereafter, if the Magistrate came to conclusion that the conclusion arrived at by the police are not correct and some offence is made out against the accused persons then this Magistrate will be free to summon the accused persons forthwith. However, if the Magistrate after considering the papers submitted by the Police came to conclusion that conclusions arrived by the Police are not correct and further enquiry ii ho needed then it will be proper for Magistrate to treat the protest application as complaint and proceed with the case as complainant case. In the instant case the Magistrate, white summoning the accused persons, have also considered the affidavits filed by the witnesses, in support of protest application report and, therefore, in my opinion, he committed an error in summoning the accused, on the basis of the Police Report as well as the affidavits, filed by the witnesses. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that in the affidavit, there is nothing except to reiterate the facts, alleged to be stated by the witnesses before I.O. Hence by considering the facts it cannot be said that the Magistrate was influenced by the laid affidavit. However, at this stage, it will not be proper for me to mike any observations. The Police papers are already before the Magistrate concerned and, I, therefore, set aside the order dated 20-10-1992 passed by the Ist Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi and direct him to consider again the question of summoning of accused persons, on the basis of Police papers, submitted by the 1.0. If on the consideration of paper, submitted by the Police, the Magistrate came to conclusion that some offence is also made out against these two revisionists, then he will pass the order of summoning in accordance with law.
2. Complainant's Counsel informs that 12th of March, 1993 is lilted before the C.J.M. He undertakes to file a certified copy of this order before the Magistrate concerned on or before 12th March, 1993. The Magistrate thereafter will pan the order of the final report, submitted by the Police in accordance with law, within fifteen days and thereafter proceed with the cage in accordance with law.-
3. With these observations, revision is allowed.