- (1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision is directed against summoning order.
(2.) ACCORDING to prosecution story given in the First Information Report the revisionists, who are two ladies alongwith two other persons, went to a house and after they were seated one of the males inflicted a knife blow causing single injury to Dhirendra. That person, who was alleged to have inflicted knife blow was not specifically named. During investigation also the same stay emerged. Final Report was submitted. There were affidavits of the witnesses in which it was alleged that then the knife blow was being inflicted ladies were catching hold of the hands of the injured. But on protest petition the learned Magistrate deferred with the Investigating Officer and summoned the revisionists for offence under Section 324, I. P. C. Normally the Magistrate has discretion i n passing summoning order under Section 204, Cr. P. C. But for that discretion there must be prima facie evidence. In the instant case in the First Information Report and the evidence collected during investigation no role was at all assigned to the ladies. In the subsequent affidavits role was assigned to the ladies. Even if they went together with two man and one of the men whipped out a knife and inflicted knife blow on the injured common intention cannot be attributed to revisionists. For imputting common intention the affidavits were obviously brought in under legal advice. Usually the revisional Court does not interfere in the assessment of the Magistrate regarding prima facie case but when it is too obvious that the Magistrate could not see the embroidery revisional Court is bound to interfere. In result, I hold that against revisionists ladies there is no prima facie case and the Magistrate was not justified in summoning them. The impugned summoning order against the lady revisionists is quashed. Revision is allowed accordingly. Revision allowed. .;