O. P. JAIN, J. Mr. S. F. A. Naqvi is present for the revisionist and A. G. A. for the State. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 21-9-1998 passed by Special Judge (D. A. A.), Agra, by which a com plaint has been dismissed under Section 203, Cr. P. C. 3. According to the complaint, 10 accused including 3 Sub-Inspectors and 2 Constables entered the house of the com plainant in the night intervening 17/18-3-1998 and they committed robbery and took away Rs. 20,000/-cash and some ornaments. They also arrested complainants son Ram Sewak and Ghanshyam. 4. The Special Judge recorded the statement of complainant Vipin Bihari Lal and 4 witnesses under Section 202, Cr. P. C and found the case to be false. 5. The reasons given by the Special Judge are that the complainant and his sons are involved in a case under Sections 302/201/394, I. P. C registered at Police Sta tion Babina and the present complaint has been filed to pressurise the police and to create a defence in favour of complainant and his sons, who are accused in the case registered at Babina 6. The Special Judge has further ob served that according to the complainant and his witnesses, the Sub- Inspectors had name plates affixed on their uniform and with the aid of name plates, their names were ascertained. It has been observed by the learned Special Judge that this is im probable that while committing robbery, the police officers did not take any precau tion to conceal their identity. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has cited Balraj Khanna and others v. Moti Ram, 1971 Cr LJ 1110; Ram Ekabal Pandey v. Kapildeo Rai and others, 1984 Cr LJ 945, Shri D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1977 JT 1. On the basis of these authorities, it has been argued that the Special Judge should examine the record with a view to find out whether a prima facie case is made out. The Court is not required to examine the evidence with a view to find out whether it is sufficient for conviction or not. 8. There is no dispute about the prin ciple. The question is whether the allega tion made by the complainant in the com plaint are believable. This Court finds that the allegations are inherently improbable. The Court is not required to examine the evidence with a view to find out whether it is sufficient for conviction or not. 8. There is no dispute about the prin ciple. The question is whether the allega tion made by the complainant in the com plaint are believable. This Court finds that the allegations are inherently improbable. It is difficult to believe that 3 Sub- Inspec tors, 2 Constables and some private per sons conspired together to commit rob bery at the house of the complainant. Ad mittedly the police went to the house of the complainant to arrest him and his sons, who were wanted in a case of murder and robbery. 9. It may also be mentioned that on the very next day i. e. on 19- 3-1998 Priyesh Kumar, who is close relative of the com plainant, sent a telegram to District Magistrate, Jhansi, and Senior Superin tendent of Police, Jhansi. The telegram is Annexure-7. In this telegram it was al leged by Priyesh Kumar that the Police forcibly took away Ram Sewak, Krishna and Ghanshyam from their houses. It is significant to note that in this telegram dated 19- 3-1998, there is not a whisper of robbery being committed by the Police. Priyesh Kumar was examined as a witness under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and in that statement, he has deposed as if he was an eye-witness to the incident of robbery and yet he did not make any such allegation in the telegram. 10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any force in this revision and it is dismissed summarily. Revision dismissed. .