Ram Sewak and Others vs State of U.P.

C.A. Rahim, J.—This revision has been directed against the order dated 25.10.1993 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasiya, District Deoria, in Case No. 5184 of 1993. By that order, he took cognizance against the revisionists under Sections 395, 397 and 435, I.P.C.

Sri Virendra Singh, appearing for the revisionists has submitted that no case under Sections 395, 397 and 435, I.P.C. has been made out. Sri R.B. Tripathl, appearing for the complainant, opposite party No. 2, has submitted that the impugned order being interlocutory order, this revision is not maintainable.

In Uma Kant Pandey v. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1996 ACC 879 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court has held that:

The revisional court should be slow in interfering against the orders of summoning accused persons and it should be rarest of rare cases when the revisional courts find that there was absolutely no point to permit the case to proceed.

In the instant case, a protest petition was filed against the final report submitted by police on which cognizance was taken and order was passed to issue summons under Sections 395/397 and 435, I.P.C.

In view of Uma Kant Pandey''s case (supra), it is necessary to see whether this Court sitting in revisional Jurisdiction can interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In other words, it is to be seen whether there is absolutely no point to permit the case to proceed. After going through the impugned order, I find that in consequence of a dispute the revisionists armed with lathis, dandas, etc. assaulted the complainant. But when the complainant fled away towards his house, he was chased by the revisionists and went inside his house. The snatched one golden chain and one ear-ring from the person of his eldest daughter-in-law. They also put fire on stack of paddy and straw causing loss of about Rs. 5,000 to the complainant.

After considering materials on record, I do not consider that there is no material against the revisionists to proceed with. The Magistrate is issued to see whether at the time of taking cognizance, there was any prima facie case. It is not necessary for me to examine the materials meticulously. There is no challenge with regard to the Magistrate''s power of taking into consideration on the protest petition, which was done rightly by him according to law. When a final report is submitted, the Magistrate may accept or reject it, may consider any protest, petition filed by the complainant. In that case, he may also issue summons straightaway u/s 190(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure by taking cognizance on the materials available in the case diary. If necessary, he may also examine the complainant and his witnesses u/s 202. Code of Criminal Procedure and take cognizance u/s 190(1)(a), Code of Criminal Procedure In the instant case, it appears that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance u/s 190(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure There is no infirmity or ambiguity in the order and hence I find that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate.

The revision is therefore, dismissed.