ORDER V.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The present petition of revision Under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the Order dated 18-11-1997 passed by IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 81/97 reversing the Order dated 15-2-1997 in Criminal Case No. 129-A/97 passed by J.M.F.C., Bhopal dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent, and directing registration of complaint against the petitioners for offences punishable Under Section 494 read with Sections 109 and 494 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts leading to the present petition are that complainant/ respondent Smt. Nidhi Shrivastava filed a complaint in the Court of J.M.F.C., Bhopal for offences punishable Under Sections 494, 495, 496, 498A and 120B of Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the complainant/respondent that she was married to accused Sanjay Shrivastava on 11-5-1993 at Patel Nagar Colony, Bhopal and thereafter lived with him. However, her relations with Sanjay Shrivastava became strained and he made her to execute a document purporting to be a document of divorce. Accused Sanjay Shrivastava thereafter filed an application for divorce Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. It was further alleged that Shri Sanjay Shrivastava performed his second marriage on 9-12-1996 with Smt. Asha Shrivastava at Village Banda, without obtaining a decree of divorce regarding his marriage with complainant/ respondent. It was also alleged that the petitioners who are close relatives of Sanjay Shrivastava were present in the second marriage performed by him. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in support of complaint during its enquiry Under Chapter XV of Criminal Procedure Code examined herself, her cousin Vipin Kumar and her father Shambu Prasad. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal by Order dated 15-2-1997 though registered the complaint as against Sanjay Shrivastava and some other accused for offence Under Section 494/114 of Indian Penal Code but dismissed the complaint against the present petitioners. 4. The respondent/complainant preferred Criminal Revision against the above order of Magistrate. The IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal by the impugned Order dated 16-11-1997 allowed the revision and directed the complaint to be registered against the petitioners Under Section 494 read with Section 109 and Under Section 494 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has urged that the impugned order is grossly unjust and manifestly illegal. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has urged that the impugned order is grossly unjust and manifestly illegal. It has been submitted that in the enquiry made and from the statements recorded Under Section 200 and Under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, no offence was made out against the petitioners. Therefore, the complaint could not have been registered against the petitioners. It was also urged that the learned trial Magistrate rightly dismissed the complaint against the petitioners in the absence of any material to justify proceeding against them. Reliance in this connection was placed on Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1998 (1) MPLJ (SC) 494 = AIR 1998 SC 128. 6. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent/complainant has urged that at the stage of registration of the complaint, the evidentiary value of the statements recorded during enquiry Under Sections 200 and 202 of Criminal Procedure Code cannot be considered and the Magistrate has only to be satisfied that there are grounds for proceeding against the accused persons. He has placed reliance on Chandra Deo v. Prokash Chandra, AIR 1963 SC 1430 and Durvasa v. Chandrakala, 1994 Cri.L.J. 3765. 7. When a complaint is filed before the Magistrate he has to enquire into the matter as per procedure laid down in Chapter XV of Criminal Procedure Code. Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code envisages that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on Complaint shall examine upon oath the Complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses. The Magistrate can make further enquiry Under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall Under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code dismiss the complaint. As per Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code, if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is a sufficient ground for proceeding, he can issue summons or warrant as the case may be. Thus before the Court issues process Under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code it is necessary for it to apply judicial mind to satisfy itself that for the grounds for initiating proceedings exists. Thus before the Court issues process Under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code it is necessary for it to apply judicial mind to satisfy itself that for the grounds for initiating proceedings exists. In the case of M/s Pepsi Food Ltd., (supra), it has been observed in the above connection that: "Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused." 8. It may be noticed that in the instant case, complainant Nidhi Shrivastava examined herself Under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code while her witnesses Vipin Kumar and Shambu Prasad were examined Under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. The above witnesses have stated that on enquiry they had learnt that Sanjay Shrivastava had performed second marriage with Smt. Asha Shrivastava. However, reading of their statements would clearly indicate that they have no personal knowledge about the alleged second marriage of Sanjay Shrivastava with Asha Shrivastava. None of the persons present in the second marriage have been examined by the complainant/respondent. That being so, the statement of complainant Nidhi Shrivastava and her cousin Vipin Kumar and father Shambu Prasad would only be hear-say evidence and cannot be considered as legal and admissible evidence. Therefore, the above statements could not have been looked into and would not constitute sufficient material to justify registration of the complaint. Since the complainant had not adduced any direct evidence regarding the presence and participation of accused/petitioners in the alleged second marriage, therefore even if she and her cousin Vipin Kumar and father Shambu Prasad have stated that they gathered some information regarding the second marriage; it would not constitute sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners, as was rightly held by the learned trial Magistrate. 9. 9. Learned counsel for complainant/respondent has firstly urged that the statements of Nidhi Shrivastava, Vipin Kumar and Shambu Prasad are not hear-say evidence. Relying upon the case of Chandra Deo v. Prokash Chandra (supra) he has submitted that the consideration of Magistrate at the time of registering complaint is limited to the extent of sufficiency of ground for proceeding and the consideration at that stage is not whether the evidence is sufficient and adequate for supporting the conviction. In Durvasa v. Chandrakala (supra) the Karnataka High Court, has observed that non-examination or improper examination of complainant would not be a ground for setting aside order of Magistrate issuing process. 10. However, in the instant case, as has been noticed earlier, the Magistrate was not satisfied with the sufficiency of evidence produced by the complainant and found that there was no ground for proceeding against the petitioners. The order of Magistrate in not registering the complaint against the petitioners appears to be justified, in as much as the complainant/respondent has not adduced any admissible evidence and therefore, hear-say evidence adduced by the complainant could not be accepted and acted upon, even for registering the complaint and proceeding against the petitioners/accused. It was incumbent on the complainant to have placed admissible evidence if she wanted the same should be acted upon by the Magistrate. She having failed to discharge the obligation as above the complaint was rightly dismissed as against the petitioners. 11. Therefore, no interference in exercise of powers of revision could have been made by the Additional Sessions Judge in the order of J.M.F.C. as has been done by him. Therefore the impugned order is grossly unjust and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, this revision by the petitioners deserves to be allowed. The impugned order passed by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal is therefore set aside and the order of trial Magistrate stand restored. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant shall stand dismissed so far as the petitioners are concerned.