JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - The Petitioner assails the order dated 16.12.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in ICC case No. 2982 of 2006, wherein, he dismissed the complaint petition. 2. Facts giving rise to the present CRLMC is thalPetitioner filed the aforesaid complaint case before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar against the opp. parties 1, 2 and 3 on the allegation that Bijaya Mati, the brother of husband of the Petitioner married Opp. party No. 2 in the month of March, 1998. Sometime after the marriage, skirmishes erupted between the couple. However, it was settled on the intervention of the local gentry. Sometime thereafter, on 30th October night opp. party left the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. On 23.9.2006, at about 12.10 P.M. police came to the house of the Petitioner and took her forcibly in police jeep to Chandrasekharpur Police Station and in the night she was sent to Mahila Police Station, Bhubaneswar, where she was assaulted badly by opp. party No. 1. On 24.10.2006 during early morning, the Petitioner was left in her house by the police and again after some hours, she was taken to the Police Station and forwarded to the Court, wherefrom she was remanded to jail. On 3.11.2006, on being released on bail when she went to her house saw that her house had been dismantled and her ornaments and utensils were missing. She came to know from P.Ws 1 and 2, who were staying in that house that on 28.10.2006 in the early morning, at about 3.30 A.M. opp. party No. 1 entered her house and mercilessly assaulted them, so also the male child aged about 7 years of the Petitioner. Thereafter opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 entered the bed room of the Petitioner and took away cash of Rs. 10,000/ - from the cash box and ornaments consisting of two gold ear rings, one silver chain, one gold chain and some utensils. Hence, the Petitioner filed the complaint petition to take action against the opp. parties 1, 2 and 3. 3. party Nos. 1 and 2 entered the bed room of the Petitioner and took away cash of Rs. 10,000/ - from the cash box and ornaments consisting of two gold ear rings, one silver chain, one gold chain and some utensils. Hence, the Petitioner filed the complaint petition to take action against the opp. parties 1, 2 and 3. 3. Initial statement of the Petitioner and statement of two of her witnesses were recorded by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar u/s 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure and after going through the same he found that the statement of the witnesses examined, differed from one another and as such the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint petition vide order dated 16.12.2006. 4. Being aggrieved with the said order, the complainant Petitioner has filed the present CRLMC. On perusal of the initial statement of the Petitioner, it is found that she heard that opp. parties 1 to 3 broke open her box and took away Rs. 1000/ - and gold and silver ornaments, but in the complaint petition it has been stated that they took away Rs. 10,000/ -. P.W.1 stated that on 28.10.2006 at 4 A.M. the accused persons came and assaulted him, broke open the cash box, and took away gold and silver ornaments and some utensils. On the other hand, as per the statement of P.W.2, on 23.10.2006 at about 4.00 A.M. police came and assaulted him and took away cash of Rs. 10,000/ - and gold and silver ornaments. His statement is silent with regard to theft of utensils. When the statement of the witnesses and the complainant differ from one another, the Court below rightly thought it proper not to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons (opp party Nos. 1 to 3). 5. Admittedly, a case has been registered against the Petitioner wherein she was remanded to jail custody and it is pending disposal. Even though there is nothing in the complaint petition and the statement of the witnesses and the Petitioner recorded u/s 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure that the dowry articles of opp. party No. 2 were seized by police on being identified by opp. party No. 2, the possibility that the so-called stolen articles were seized in connection with the criminal case registered against the Petitioner, cannot be ruled out. party No. 2 were seized by police on being identified by opp. party No. 2, the possibility that the so-called stolen articles were seized in connection with the criminal case registered against the Petitioner, cannot be ruled out. I am conscious that this Court should not traverse beyond the complaint petition and statement of the complainant and her witnesses recorded u/s 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but from the circumstances of the case it is abundantly clear that if at all any articles were taken from the house of the Petitioner, the same were seized in connection with the case pending against her. 6. Moreover, since the complaint petition was dismissed u/s 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner ought to have filed revision, but instead she filed the petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure giving rise to the present CRLMC. Of course, in an appropriate case, a petition filed u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be converted to Revision, but I do not think that it is a fit case to be converted to revision. 7. In a petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure or a revision petition the scope of this Court is very limited. If the finding of the Court below is perverse leading to miscarriage of justice then only the order of the Court below can be interfered with. I do not find any such perversity in the impugned order leading to miscarriage of justice, so as to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed