ORDER Heard Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 28/03/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Banka in Cr.Rev. No. 203 of 2011 whereby he has set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Banka, who had dismissed the complaint lodged by opposite party no.2 under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the said revisional order by which the launching of the prosecution of opposite party no.2 for offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code has been put on trial. 3. The petitioners were made accused by opposite party no.2 on the basis of a complaint lodged by her in the year 2009. The aforesaid complaint i.e. Complaint Case No.1167 of 2009 was sent for registration of a regular police case giving rise to Belhar P.S.Case no. 148 of 2009 dated 03/12/2009 under Sections 323, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid FIR was lodged because of land dispute resultant, scuffle and injuries. After thorough investigation the police found the case to be false and therefore submitted final report not only not sending the accused persons for trial but also for institution of prosecution against the informant- opposite party no.2 for the offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. A protest was lodged by the opposite party no.2 which was instituted as a complaint. Before it was treated as complaint, final report was accepted by the court below. The protest complaint was acted upon and in the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., three witnesses, apart from opposite party no.2, deposed before the court below. The court below, while analyzing the deposition of the witnesses, found that all the three witnesses adduced on behalf of the prosecution have spoken about the land dispute between the parties. The enquiry further reveals that opposite party no.2 had, in her complaint stated, about her having remained in hospital in an injured condition for three days but in her on solemn affirmation before the court below she has stated that she was released immediately after treatment from the hospital on the same day. The enquiry further reveals that opposite party no.2 had, in her complaint stated, about her having remained in hospital in an injured condition for three days but in her on solemn affirmation before the court below she has stated that she was released immediately after treatment from the hospital on the same day. The witnesses also spoke of a case having been lodged by the accused persons against the brother of opposite party no.2. 4. On a careful analysis of the materials the learned magistrate was of the opinion that there were divergent statements of the witnesses, there was land dispute between the parties and falsity of the allegation. The prosecution version was held to be highly unreliable. 5. Considering the above aspect of the matter the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. On the same day, later, the learned Judicial Magistrate revived the prosecution of opposite party no.2 for the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The aforementioned order dated 30/05/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was challenged by opposite party no.2 by way of Cr.Rev. No. 203/2011. The learned revisional court vide order dated 28/03/2012 set aside the said order of the learned magistrate whereby the complaint had been dismissed and the prosecution of opposite party no.2 for the offences under Sections 182 and 211 IPC was revived. The aforesaid revisional order is under challenge. Perused the order dated 28th March, 2012. 7. The learned revisional court after hearing the submissions of the parties came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal of complaint was not justified in the eye of law. The revisional court noted down that all that could to be seen by the learned Magistrate is whether an offence has been made out or not, the materials on record. No doubt such is the proposition of law in a broader sense. Nonetheless, the learned Magistrate has not only to record the deposition of the witnesses and accept the deposition of witnesses like a rubber stamp but has to see the allegations in its entirety. 8. What is prohibited at the stage of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C is delving deep into the allegation in order to find out the truthness or otherwise of such allegation. 9. 8. What is prohibited at the stage of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C is delving deep into the allegation in order to find out the truthness or otherwise of such allegation. 9. No law precludes a magistrate from applying his judicial mind with caution and circumspection to find out whether the averments made in the complaint are believable. The order dismissing the complaint clearly spelt out the reason as to why the statements made by the opposite party no. 2 or her witnesses were not plausible/believable. If the complainant (opposite party no.2) chose to make the case serious by stating that she has to remain in hospital for three days for her treatment but later make a volte-face during enquiry and talks of her being released on the same day when she went for treatment, only reflects that wrong statement is being made in the prosecution. Such false accusation specially in cases of civil dispute, is required to be deprecated and nipped in the bud. 10. Giving all such reasons, the court below rightly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. 11. The learned revisional court, perhaps took an unreasonable view. The revisional order is not fit to be sustained. 12. However, considering the fact that there is land dispute and the counter case is also available on record no useful purpose will be served and a new series of litigations will be generated if the opposite party no.2 is allowed to be prosecuted under Sections 182 and 211 IPC. On this ground such prosecution of opposite party no.2 is not warranted. This Court, exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, directs that no prosecution, in the facts of this case, be launched against the opposite party no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 182 and 211 IPC. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction the application is allowed.