(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29.8.2011 vide which the revision preferred by the complainant against order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, was set aside.
(2.) Vide order dated 13.1.2009, the Judicial Magistrate, while commenting upon the complaint and the evidence on record, refused to take cognizance of the same and declined to summon the petitioners. The revisional court, on the other hand, observed that the Magistrate had exceeded its jurisdiction by commenting upon the quality of evidence while conducting enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. which was impermissible and all that was required to be seen, was the complaint and the preliminary evidence and if disclosing the commission of offence, would warrant the summoning of the accused persons.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the course adopted by the court of revision and the observations made in its order are totally erroneous and the court of revision could not have substituted its opinion in the place of the one expressed by the Magistrate. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon Smt. Nagawwa versus Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, 1976 AIR(SC) 1947 and Bhushan Kumar and another versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2012 2 RCR(Cri) 794. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate's opinion could not have been substituted by the court of revision and further in view of the fact that the courts are already over burdened, respect should have been shown to the opinion, so expressed by the Magistrate.