Ajit Kumar Agarwal vs State of U.P.& Anr.

Krishna Kumar, J.

This revision has been filed against order dated 1891999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, whereby setting aside order dated 2471996, passed by the learned Magistrate for summoning the accused. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that when the order was passed by the learned Magistrate for summoning the accused, the revisional Court could not set aside the said order because it is the subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate who may take cognizance and the revisional Court cannot interfere. I am not convinced with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revisionist because if the learned Magistrate has acted in such a way that there was misuse of process of law, the revisional Court must certainly intervene although it is a fact that the revisional Court should not lightly set aside the finding of the learned Magistrate who has to satisfy himself whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. Learned Counsel for the revisionist placed reliance upon 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) page 85, the facts of that case was however, totally different and circumstances are also very different and the said case law cannot be relied upon. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the learned Magistrate has to see whether any prima facie case is made out or not. The case related with some deposit based on some advertisement. It is purely a case of civil nature and there was no criminality involved at any stage. There is nothing to show that there was any criminal intention or fraud, deception etc. From the facts of complaint mentioned in the order of the revisional Court, it is also clear that the complainant was alleging some loss of the interest which was not paid as per advertisement. The said fact which has been admitted does not show any criminal liability and, therefore, the learned Magistrate committed gross illegality in not considering this fact in summoning the accused. When no prima facie case is being made out, the learned Magistrate committed gross illegality in passing such an order. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties rightly contended that bogus and futile exercise should not be allowed to be permitted to litigant. The revisional Court, therefore, committed no illegality and I do not find any force in this revision which is hereby rejected.

Revision dismissed.