Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. - (1.) LIST revised. None appeared on behalf of the revisionist. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) THE present revision has been filed against the order dated 6.7.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Rahis Ahmad v. Khalik and others. Complaint Case No. 3626 of 2006, by which after receiving evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. for the complainant/revisionist, the court below has passed the summoning order dated 6.7.2006 by which only one accused was summoned for offence under Section 406, I.P.C. Aggrieved by this impugned order, complainant has preferred the present revision with prayer to summon the other accused persons mentioned in this complaint. The ground as mentioned in the memo of revision is that evidence adduced by the complainant/revisionist make out, inter alia, the commission and offence against other opposite parties of the complaint herein summoned. Therefore, the other persons also have been summoned like opposite party No. 1 Khalil.
(3.) A perusal of record shows that court below had considered the available evidences on merits and rightly summoned one accused for offence under Section 406, I.P.C. Learned Magistrate after going through the evidences was not satisfied about prima facie commission of any other offence. Finding of fact reached by lower court has been challenged in this revision. A perusal of impugned order shows that lower court had appreciated the evidences and circumstances of the case and thereafter reached to his conclusion. There may be difference of opinion as to whether on basis of those evidences conclusion reached at by learned Magistrate is correct, or the other probability pointed out by revisionist is proper. But certainly revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for interference in impugned order merely on ground that on basis of available facts there is probability of reaching to on more conclusions other than the one reached by the trial court.;