JUDGMENT Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J. - This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set-aside the order dated 12.04.2016 passed in criminal revision No. 2/16 by Additional Sessions Judge Bina District Sagar whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bina affirmed the order dated 02.12.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bina in which Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bina refused to take cognizance against the respondents under Section 294, 323, 506, 342, 363, 452 of IPC and dismissed the petition under Section 203 of Cr.P.C 2. Facts of the case are that petitioner complainant filed a criminal complaint on 12.03.2015 against the respondents under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance. It is alleged by the petitioner that one Manoj is his son and on 18.01.2005 at about 5.00 in the morning respondent Manohar came to his house and took Manoj with him after sometime all the respondents came to his house with axe, rod, Sword, stick and other sharp edged weapons. They surrounded him and his family members and also told that they beat Manoj and Manoj ran away to railway line for suicide. Due to threat by respondents petitioner could not lodge complaint on time. On 20.01.2005 he lodged the report in Police Station Bhangarh but report was not written according to the petitioner, thereafter Manoj could not be found anywhere then petitioner filed a petition before this Court and inquired from senior officers but Manoj was not found, so he filed criminal complaint against respondents on 12.03.2015. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bina inquired the matter and called report from the concerned police station. Inquiry report was received on 29.05.2015 thereafter, statement of complainant and witnesses have been recorded under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate found that there is no sufficient ground to take cognizance against the respondent. So he dismissed the criminal complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, petitioner filed a criminal revision before Additional Sessions Judge, Bina which was registered as Cr.R. No. 02/2016. Additional Sessions Judge Bina, dismissed the revision presented by the petitioner on 12.04.2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the both the court below is illegal and against the material available on record and liable to the set-aside. Additional Sessions Judge Bina, dismissed the revision presented by the petitioner on 12.04.2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the both the court below is illegal and against the material available on record and liable to the set-aside. Both the court below have failed to see that there is sufficient evidence against the respondents to prosecute them for alleged offence. It is evident from the evidence that son of complainant has been kidnapped by the respondents and since date of kidnapping son of complainant could not be traced out, so there is last seen evidence available on record. Scope of inquiry under Section 203 is very limited then trial court should consider that that witnesses are reliable or not. All these aspects are alien to the scope of enquiry at that stage. Delay in complaint can be explained during the trial of the case, so the order of court below be set-aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments passed in the Case of Umrao Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) CriLJ 2370 , in the case of Ramesh Bhai Atmaram Vaghela Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) CriLJ 2386 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Vikramajeet Singh, (2018) CriLJ 4681 . 3. None for the respondents. 4. Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 5. Firstly it would be appropriate to read the Section 203 of Cr.P.C. which is quoted as under:- "203. Dismissal of complaint. If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing, " 6. Hon'Ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrao Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) CriLJ 2370 has held as under:- "In Harekrushna Mohanty versus Adikando Behera, (1966) CriLJ 64 , has been held by Orissa high court as under:- "4. To appreciate the contention, the scope of Sections 202 and 203, Cr PC may be examined. An enquiry u/s 202 is to be directed only for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint. To appreciate the contention, the scope of Sections 202 and 203, Cr PC may be examined. An enquiry u/s 202 is to be directed only for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint. Section 203 lays down that the complaint may be dismissed after consideration of the statements on oath of the complainant and the witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry, if any, under Sec. 202, if the Magistrate in his judgement thinks that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. The scope of the Section is no longer in controversy. The principles laid down in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra, (1963) AIR SC 1430 may be summarised for convenience : (i) Since the very question for consideration is whether the accused should be called upon to face an accusation, he has no right to take part in the proceeding, nor has the Magistrate any jurisdiction to permit him to do so. As a necessary corollary it follows that the Magistrate cannot put any question to the witnesses at the instance of the accused. (ii) The Magistrate is, however, free to put such questions to the witnesses of the complainant as he may think proper in the interest of justice. (iii) It is the bounden duty of the Magistrate to elicit all facts not merely with a view to protect the interest of an absent accused but also with a view to bring to book a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made. (iv) Whether the complaint is frivolous or not is, at that stage, necessarily to be determined on the basis of materials placed before him by the complainant. Whatever defence the accused may have can only be inquired into at the trial. If, however, from the evidence given by the complainant a reasonable defence is established, or the accused is entitled to a benefit of doubt, the complaint can be dismissed. (v) The Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate to support a conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. (vi) The object of enquiry u/s 202 is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true. Whether the evidence is adequate to support a conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. (vi) The object of enquiry u/s 202 is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true. In order to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding u/s 203, the Magistrate is entitled to consider the evidence recorded at the inquiry u/s 202, the statements of the complainant and his witnesses on oath and the result of the investigation or inquiry, if any. He is not entitled to rely upon any materials besides this. Following the aforesaid principles in that particular case, their Lordships held that where the Magistrate had ordered an enquiry u/s 202 by another Magistrate, it was not open to him to consider the statement recorded during the investigation by the police, or the evidence adduced before him during the inquiry arising out of another complaint on such extraneous matter, the proceeding was held to be vitiated. Similarly, their Lordships held the inquiry by the Magistrate as vitiated as two persons, who were associates of the accused, were examined as Court witnesses on the suggestion of the accused, who was permitted to appear through counsel at the enquiry." 25. From the above exposition of law by the apex court and various High Courts, now it is well settled that only statements of complainant and witnesses u/s 200 and 202 of the code and result of an investigation directed u/s 202 only can be considered by the Magistrate while proceeding u/s 203/ 204 of the code. However, Ld. CJM , while passing impugned order transgressed such well de-marketed area of power and hence committed illegality by usurping power not vested in him. It pointed out that in the trial , which was proceeding against the applicant/ complainant and his associates, conclusions by the police were based on evidences of different persons than what was mentioned in the complaint by the applicant complainant, albeit both related with murder of Budha Singh, and hence it was desirable that both the versions be tested on the anvil of truthfulness. Ld. CJM therefore, fell in gross error in passing the impugned order." 7. It is evident from the record that petitioner filed a criminal complaint before the judicial Magistrate First Class to take cognizance against the respondents. Ld. CJM therefore, fell in gross error in passing the impugned order." 7. It is evident from the record that petitioner filed a criminal complaint before the judicial Magistrate First Class to take cognizance against the respondents. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class called for inquiry report and inquiry report has been received which is annexed in the record. It is mentioned in the inquiry report that on 18.01.2005 one complainant lodged report against Manoj Prajapati, and crime No. 3/2005 under Section 354, 506 and 294 of IPC was registered against son of the petitioner/complainant but son of petitioner absconded so charge-sheet has been field under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. Complainant lodged missing report of his son. Missing report was registered as Gum-insan no. 105 so complainant filed this criminal complaint due to enmity with respondents. Apart from this petitioner himself filed writ petition No. 1932/2006 in the nature of habeas corpus before this Court. This Court issued notice to respondent no. 2 and Superintendent of Police Sagar. They informed this Court that on 18.01.2005 wife of respondent no. 2 had gone to attend her natural call. In the field Manoj had tried to outrage her modesty when she resisted, she was tied to be throttled down. FIR was registered at Police Station Bhangarh on 18.01.2005 and crime no. 3/2005 has been registered against him under Section 354, 506 and 294 of IPC As soon as Manoj came to know that an offence has been registered against him and he fled away from his village, but despite the best efforts made by the respondent-State his whereabouts could not be known nor could he be apprehended. Statements of various persons which have been recorded, with an intention to investigate the matter, have also been submitted. From these statements, it appears that with an intention to avoid his own arrest in crime no. 3/2005 he has gone underground. Thereafter this court disposed of the petition with a direction that permanent warrant of arrest has already been issued against Manoj, so State is duty bound to arrest him and to produce him before the court where challan has been filed against him. When permanent warrant of arrest could not be executed and Manoj was not arrested and not produced before the court then again petitioner filed contempt petition No. 329/2014 before this Court. When permanent warrant of arrest could not be executed and Manoj was not arrested and not produced before the court then again petitioner filed contempt petition No. 329/2014 before this Court. This court on 20.03.2014 with the direction dismissed the contempt petition and petitioner is granted liberty to initiate proceeding afresh in accordance with law, in case he has any grievance still subsisting. Thereafter petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the respondents on 20.03.2015. Learned Judicial Magistrate took statement of complainant and witnesses, thereafter he found that there are many contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. It is also evident that petitioner did not allege any fact before this Court in writ petition that all the respondents took his son and threatenrd him and also entered in the house and beat him. So in these circumstances, learned Judicial Magistrate did not find sufficient reason to initiate proceedings against respondents, it can not be said that the order is illegal perverse and without jurisdiction, so it is not proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. According this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.