- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. directed against the judgment and order dated 16-9-1991 passed by the then IX Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Revision No. 245 of 1989, Smt. Indrawati Pandey v. State and others. That revision had arisen out of order dated 1-7-1989 passed by the then III Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 1829 of 1987, Smt. Indravati Pandey v. Chandrama Pandey and others, whereby the learned Magistrate directed that only accused Chandrama Pandey and Ram Lochan Pandey be sum moned to face the charge under Section 494/109,1. P. C. and he discharged accused Nos. 2,3,4,5,7 and 9 in absence of proper evidence on record. Accused No. 6 had died pedente lite,
(2.) SMT. Indrawati Pandey is admitted ly the wife of Chandrama Pandey whose marriage had taken place on 7-5-1974. SMT, Indrawati Pandey filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging illtreatement, demand of dowry, mis behaviour etc. at the hands of opposite parties. SMT. Indrawati Pandey also al leged that her husband Chandrama Pan dey had remarried with another lady Manju Pandey with the help of the other members of the family. The remarriage of Chandrama Pandey makes out an offence under Section 494, I. P. C. and, therefore, the family members were arrayed as ac cused in the case by SMT. Indrawati Pandey. After recording statements under Sections 200/202, Cr. PC. , the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case against Chandrama Prasad Pandey and Ram Lochan Pandey has only been made out and no case has been made out against the remaining ac cused and, therefore, they were let off. This order dated 1-7-1989 was the subject-matter of Criminal Revision No. 245 of 1989 before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi preferred by complainant Smt. Indrawati Pandey. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties the learned Sessions Judge found that prima facie case against all ac cused persons had been made out. There fore, the learned Sessions Judge directed the learned Magistrate to summon all these accused who were let off and proceed with the case in accordance with law. This order passed by the learned Ses sions Judge has been challenged by the accused persons by filing the instant revision in this Court.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionists submits that this is the stage of admission and the direction of the learned Sessions Judge for summoning all the ac cused-revisionists is unwarranted. He should not have issued the direction to the learned Magistrate. THE direction was that the learned trial Court shall summon Ganga Pandey, Daya Pandey, Rajendra Pandey sons of Raj Nath Pandey, and Smt. Manju Pandey daughter of Ram Lochan Pandey and the wife of Ram Lochan Pan dey to face the trial for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109, I. P. C. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. I find that the direc tion given by the learned Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction. This portion of the order is struck off. As regards the remain-ing prima facie case is made out. I find that the entire matter is to be reconsidered by the learned trial Court in accordance with directions and the evidence on record. The order of the learned Magistrate suffers from glaring mistake that there was no good case against the remaining accused. The learned Magistrate had to proceed on the premise (on the basis) of the evidence on record whether prima facie case is made out or not. If this standard is applied, and prima facie case is made out, he may pass suitable order.;