- (1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision, under Section 397 Cr. P. C. is directed against summoning order dated 7. 1. 86, passed by the Magistrate in the following circumstances :
(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 3 Durga Prasad lodged a First Information Report against the revisionists for offences under Sections 323/504/506 I. P. C. Subsequently, the case was converted under Sections 323/325/504 I. P. C. Case was investigated. Ultimately Final Report was submitted to the effect that the investigation showed only altercation be tween the parties and a case of assault etc. was false. Notice was issued to the informant opposite party No. 3. He appeared and filed protest petition accompanied by affidavit. Learned Magistrate perused the case diary and passed the impugned order which runs as under: "heard the learned Counsel and perused the affidavit and F. I. R. Complainant has supported the tase and there is X-ray report regarding the fracture. Two witnesses of the spot have also filed the affidavits to support the case. Sufficient evidence to summon the accused. " Final Report No. 85 dated 23. 12. 85 is hereby rejected. Summon the accused persons. Fix 3. 3. 86. " A Final Report is not binding upon the Magistrate. If the Magistrate differs from the opinion of the Investigation Officer he can summon the accused on the basis of material collected during investigation. Every protest petition need not be treated by the Magistrate as complaint. Unless the Magistrate treats the protest petition as complaint he is not bound to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. Keeping these principles of law in view it is evidence from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate did not treat the protest petition as complaint. He perused the case diary, disagreed with the opinion of the Investigating Officer and summoned the accused on the basis of evidence collected by the investigating Officer and existing in the case diary. Magistrate did not commit any illegality in summoning the revisionists.
(3.) REVISION has no force and is hereby rejected. Stay order dated 28. 5. 86 is vacated. REVISIONists Bakridi, Rahmatullah and Paras Nath are directed to appear before the Magistrate concerned voluntarily. On other appearance they shall not be taken into judicial custody. Instead they shall be required only to furnish bonds with or without sureties as laid down in Section 88 Cr. P. C. But these directions shall be complied with by the Magistrate only if the revisionist are not already on bail. REVISION rejected. .;