AKHTAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the impugned order. Under the impugned order revisionist has been summoned under Sections 493 and 498, l.P.C. It has been contended that prima facie commission of offence under this sections is not disclosed in the complaint. Copy of complaint (Annexure 1) has been perused. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the complaint clearly disclose commission of offences. Learned Magistrate has considered the statement under Section 200, Cr. P.C. of the complainant and under Section 202, Cr. P.C, of the two witnesses of the complainant and also considered the photostat copy of notice filed by the complainant. He found prima facie case to proceed against the revisionist under the aforesaid section. Nothing more was required from the learned Magistrate at that stage.

(2.) THERE is no merit in this revision. It is summarily rejected.