- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE revisionist is aggrieved by an order-dated 2-9-2006 passed by C. J. M. , Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 3989 of 2006 (Anita v. Shailesh Pratap Singh) has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P. C. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that CJ. M. Azamgarh has transgressed the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 203 Cr. P. C. and scanned the allegations of the complaint as if he is finally deciding the trial. Needless to say that marshelling of evidence and critical appreciation thereof is not required at the stage of Section 203 Cr. P. C. , for the purposes of summoning under Section 204 Cr. P. C. only a prima facie case is sine qua non. If the allegations are perceptibly clear making out an offence then the accused has to be summoned. Critically appreciating the allegations at the stage of summoning by the Magistrate is not sanctified by the law. There are various stages in complaint cases during the course of the trial where the Magistrate or the trial Court is supposed to scan the evidence. The first stage is under Section 204 Cr. P. C. where only a prima facie case has to be looked into. Second stage is at the stage of Section 245 Cr. P. C. where the trial Court is to decide whether the accused can be charged with any offence or not. At that stage the trial Court can discharge the accused if in its opinion the accused has not committed any offence. The third stage is the stage of finally deciding the case whether the trial Court is entitled to go into the whole evidence and all the materials to critically appreciate and decide the case finally. The impugned order indicates that at the stage of Section 203 Cr. P. C, the trial Court has passed a judgment deciding a case and have the said impugned order suffers from patent illegality and cannot allowed to be sustained in law.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, this revision is allowed at the admission stage itself. The impugned order dated 2-9-2006 passed by CJ. M. Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 3989 of 2006, Anita v. Shailesh Pratap Singh, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to CJ. M. Azamgarh to decide it in accordance with law. .;