V. N. Varma, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 29th April, 1976 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in a case arising out of complaint filed against the ap plicants under Sections 436, 504 and 506 IPC.
(2.) O. P. No. 1 (Prem Pal) filed a complaint aginst the applicants under Sections 436, 504 and 506 IPC. On 4th August, 1975 the Magistrate took evi dence under Section 202 CrPC and sum moned the applicants for trial under Section 436 IPG fixing 1st November, 1975 for their appearance. On 1st Nov ember, 1975 O. P. No. 1 did not appear in Court. It was also brought to the notice of the Court by the office that O. P. No: 1 had not taken steps for sum moning the accused applicants. The Magistrate, therefore, dismissed the complaint under Section 204 CrPC. O.P. No. 1 went up in revision and his revi sion was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, vide order dated 29th April, 1976. Though this order, dated 1- 11-1975 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint was set aside and the Magistrate was directed to proceed with the case from the stage on which order dated 4th August, 1975 was passed. The applicants felt aggrie ved with this order and have now come up in revision to this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and have also gone through the orders passed by the court below. The order passed by the Magistrate shows that he had dismissed the complaint under Section 204 (4) CrPC on the ground that O. P. No. 1 had not appeared in court on the date fixed and also on the ground that O. P. No- 1 had not taken steps for summoning the applicants. Section 204 (4) provides that where any process fee is payable under any law, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and if such fees are not paid within a reason able time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. In this case, as stated above, the applicants had been summon ed for trial under Section 436 IPC Offence under Section 436 IPC is a cog nizable offence. In a case under Section 436 IPC the law does not provide that the complainant has to pay any process fees for summoning the accused. It was, therefore, not at all necessary for O. P. No. 1 to have paid any process fees for summoning the applicants in the case. The Magistrate was therefore, not au thorised under law to dismiss the com plaint for non-deposit of any process fees by O.P. No. 1. The Magistrate could not also have dismissed the complaint for non-appearance of O. P. No. 1 on 1st November, 1975. No provision of law has been shown under which the learned Magistrate could have dismissed the complaint because of the non-appearance of O. P No. 1 in this case, which was a case under Section 436 IPC. The learned Addl Sessions Judge was, therefore, absolutely correct when he set aside the Magistrate's order dated 1st November, 1975 dismissing the complaint under Sec tion 204 CrPC. I, however, find that while restoring the complaint the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to proceed with the case from the stage subsequent to the passing of the order dated 4th August, (975. This direc tion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to my mind, was neither proper nor in accordance with law. On 4th August- 1975 some witnesses produced by O. P. No. 1 were examined and then an order was passed summoning the appli cants for trial under Section 436 IPC. If a case triable exclusively by the Court of Session is instituted on a complaint, the law as contained in Section 202 CrPC enjoins that the accused should be summoned only when the Magistrate has called upon the complainant to pro duce all his witnesses and examined them on oath. The case before us was undoubtedly a case triable exclusively by the Court of Session. It was, therefore, not at all proper on the part of the Magistrate to have examined some witnesses of the complainant only and then summoned the accused. I find that the Magistrate had examined some wit nesses as Court witnesses also. This was not in accordance with law at the stage on which they were examined. The complainant should have been called upon to produce all his witnesses and then the Court should have found out whether a prima facie case against the accused was made out or not. If the Magistrate felt that a prima facie case was made out against the accused, then and then only he should have summoned accused. The summoning of the accu sed applicants in this case was not proper as full ompliance of the provi sions of Section 202 CrPC had not been done: In view of this order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge that the Magistrate should proceed with the case from the stage subsequent to the passing of the order dated 4th August, 1975 was not proper. Instead the Magis trate should have been asked to examine all the witnesses produced by the com plainant and thereafter if he felt satisfied that a prima facie was made out against the applicants then he should have sum moned them. The summoning of the applicants without full compliance of the provisions of Section 202 CrPO was not at all proper. In the result, I allow the revision in part and maintain the order of the Court below setting aside the Magistrate order dated 1st November, 1975. The other part of the order is set aside and the Magistrate is ordered to proceed with the case after complying with the provisions of Section 202 CrPC as men tioned above. He should first examine all the witnesses produced by O.P. No. 1 and if he feels satisfied that a prima facie is made out against the applicants then he should summon them. Stay order dated 16th July, 1976, is vacated. Revision partly allowed.;