HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5550 of 2024 Court No. - 68 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Mata Pher, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. However, no one appeared on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5 despite personal service of notice, issued by this Court vide order dated 3.12.2024. 2. The instant revision has been filed to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 3.8.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (DAA) Court No. 12 Agra whereby the complaint case No. 102 of 2023, under Section 392, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Saiyan, District Agra, was dismissed 203 Cr.P.C. 3. Facts giving rise to the present case are that the revisionist filed a complaint against opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 and in support of his complaint, one Gyan Singh was examined as PW-1 while Amit Kumar as PW-2 and the revisionist himself got examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The court below after analyzing the statements of the witnesses as well as taking into consideration the police report, dismissed the same under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order is absolutely erroneous because at this stage the only requirement is prima facie satisfaction of the court concerned to issue process, but in the present case, the court below despite the fact that witnesses as well as the present revisionist clearly supported the incident, rejected the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by meticulously examining the entire case on Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mata Pher Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shiv Ram Chahar Alias Shiv Ram Singh Chahar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) merit, ignoring the fact that prima facie case for summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is made out. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta and others; (2015) 3 SCC 424 wherein the Apex Court in paragraph No.7 observed that at the stage of summoning the accused the court is required to see whether prima facie case is made out or not. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the revisionist has not mentioned the name of his witnesses in the complaint. Even the police report shows that the applicant does not have a good relationship with the private respondents and a civil litigation has been pending between them. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the court below. 6. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the in complaint the applicant has mentioned the name of the accused persons and narrated the incident, though specific name of witnesses was not mentioned. From the perusal of the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, it is clear that they have supported the version of the revisionist's complaint. So far as the incident in question is concerned, though there is minor contradiction between the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, the Apex Court in the case of Sonu Gupta (supra) has observed in paragraph No.7 that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is required to apply its mind only with the view to find out whether prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused person and at this stage the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or evaluate the merit of the materials or other evidences. Magistrate is not required to undertake exercise to find out at this stage whether material is sufficient for conviction or not. 7. In the present case, witnesses clearly supported the prosecution version that private respondents had beaten the applicant after stopping him on road. Therefore, merely because there is no injury report, cannot be a ground that the revisionist was not beaten by the private respondents. At the stage of taking cognizance for summoning, the court is only required to see whether prima facie case is made out and, not a particular offence. CRLR No. 5550 of 2024 2 It is the discretion of the court to summon an accused on the basis of material available on record in any particular section and the entire case cannot be thrown out merely because serious nature of offence appears to be not made out. 8. In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 3.8.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (DAA) Court No. 12 Agra is erroneous, hence deserves to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, order dated 3.8.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 102 of 2003 hereby set aside and the court below is directed to pass fresh order in the light of the observations made here in above. 10. The revision allowed. September 8, 2025 Vandana CRLR No. 5550 of 2024 3 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad