JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J.—Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 10 is taken on record. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the revisionist Babu Lal against the order dated 23.2.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Chhata District Mathura in Criminal Case No. 241/IX/2009 rejecting the complaint of the revisionist Babu Lal for summoning Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 10 as accused in the complaint case. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the revisionist Babu Lal moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chhata alleging therein that he is in possession of a house consisting of two rooms and a tin shed in front of the rooms and is living in the house with his family. Since the accused persons, named in the application were trying to dispossess the revisionist Babu Lal from the house in question, he filed Original Suit No. 15 of 2000 Babu Lal v. Rajendra Singh, making a prayer that the defendant Rajendra Singh may be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff Babu Lal from the house in question. This suit was filed on 29.1.2000. Subsequently, the defendant of the Suit namely Rajendra Singh also filed Original Suit No. 63 of 2000 on 6.4.2000 for the ejectment of the complainant/ plaintiff Babu Lal. Both these suits are pending in the civil Court. 4. The complainant further alleged that on 16.8.2008 at about 8.00 a.m., six police personnel who were claiming themselves from police station Chhata alongwith 9 accused persons named in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and few others came to the house of the complainant and after breaking open the door, looted the house hold goods and took forcible possession of the house as well. It was further alleged that the complainant was kidnapped by these accused persons and was kept in confinement from 16.8.2008 to 22.8.2008. When the complainant could manage his escape from the clutches of the accused persons, he reported the matter to the S.S.P. Mathura, Station Officer, P.S. Chhata District Mathura and also sent the applications to the Chief Minister and the Home Secretary etc. Since no action was taken by the authorities, he moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 5. When the complainant could manage his escape from the clutches of the accused persons, he reported the matter to the S.S.P. Mathura, Station Officer, P.S. Chhata District Mathura and also sent the applications to the Chief Minister and the Home Secretary etc. Since no action was taken by the authorities, he moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 5. The Magistrate, however, instead of sending the application to the Police station for registering a case, treated the application as a complaint case and proceeded to record the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the statements of the witnesses Jhamman Singh and Beer Singh under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant, the Magistrate found that no case for summoning the accused persons is made out and then dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 23.2.2010. It is the above said order dated 23.2.2010, which is under challenge in this revision. 7. In revision, I have heard Sri Nirvikar Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Rajendra Pachauri, leanred counsel for the Opposite party Nos. 2 to 10. It is not in dispute that the complainant Babu Lal had filed Original Suit No. 15 of 2000 on 29.1.2000 claiming that he is in possession of the house. This fact is admitted to the defendant Rajendra Singh as he subsequently had filed another Original Suit No. 63 of 2000 on 6.4.2000 seeking the relief of ejectment of the complainant Babu Lal from the house in question. 8. Now the allegation of the complainant Babu lal is that he was forcibly evicted from the house in question on 16.8.2008 at about 8 a.m. by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 10 and the entire house hold goods were taken away by these accused. Further the allegation is that the accused persons also took forcible possession of the house and not only that, the complainant was also kidnapped by them. A perusal of the order of the trial Court reveals that this evidence has not been considered and discussed at all and the trial Court was swayed away only by this fact that the Civil suits are pending between the parties in the Civil Court and the matter is of civil nature. I think that the approach of the magistrate was not correct. I think that the approach of the magistrate was not correct. Even if the civil suits are pending between the parties, if any offence has been committed then it is the duty of the Court to take cognizance of the offences. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the revisionists? In the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal and another, 1973(10) ACC 181 (SC), while considering the scheme of Sections 200, 203 Cr.P.C. it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that Section 203 Cr.P.C. does not say that a regular trial for adjudging the truth or otherwise of the accusations made against the accused should take place at that stage. Section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials, there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint. 10. In the case of Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose, 1964 (SCR) 639, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that at the stage of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction. Again in the case of Smt. Nagwwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kanjalgi and others, 1976 (1) ACC 225 (SC), while considering the scope of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the basis of the materials placed by the complainant before the Court; (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (c) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In that case, it has been held by way of illustration that the order of magistrate issuing process can be quashed where the allegations made in the complainant or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value made out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an office which is alleged against accused. 11. In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others v. State of Bihar and another, 2002 (44) ACC 168 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that at the stage of passing order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. searching sufficient ground to convict is not necessary. 12. It is thus clear that the complaint may be dismissed only when there is no material to proceed. From the statement of the complainant as well as of the two witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that no prima facie offience was made out against the accused persons as there are clear allegations about the house tresspass, dispossession, loot of the property as well as about kidnapping of the complainant. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the Magistrate has committed illegality in passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside. The revision is allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 23.2.2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Magistrate concerned to pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned by registered post A.D. as well as by Fax. —————