The duty of the magistrate to scrutinize the allegations made in the complaint, the limited scope of inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C., and the lack of locus standi for the accused in the proceeding under Section 202 Cr. P. C. were the central legal points established in the judgment.

( 1 ) INSTANT revision has been preferred against order dated 20-2-1998 and 16-11-2000 passed by learned Judicial magistrate Azamgarh (II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Azamgarh) by which the revisionists have been summoned under section 204 Cr. P. C. to face trial under sections 147, 427, 435 IPC and protest petition filed by them has been rejected on the ground that prima facie case was made out against them and protest petition was not maintainable at the stage of summoning the accused,

( 2 ) HEARD Sri V. K. Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and Sri rakesh Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Rajpati, and have gonethrough the impugned orders and record.

( 3 ) A complaint was filed by Rajpati, respondent No. 2, resident of village devchandpur, police station Tarawan, district Azamgarh, against the revisionists Vijai, bhuteli, Sadhu and Ramashray, who are also the residents of the same village devchandpur, that they along with some others after forming an unlawful assembly damaged Naad, Khunta etc. of the complainant and set his mandavi on fire on 31-1-1997 at 7. 30 A. M. When wife and children of the complainant resisted, they were scolded. A complaint of the incident was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh. When no action was taken, the complaint was filed. On this complaint the statement of the complainant Rajpati was recorded under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and statements of witnesses Ramadhar and Sail were recorded under Section 202 Cr. P. C. and the accused were summoned to face trial under sections 147, 427 and 435 IPC.

( 4 ) THE revisionists filed protest petition that Sadhu alias Prem Kumar was on duty in a Village Bank and Vijai Singh was in lucknow, therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. It was also alleged that one ncr No. 15 of 1997 was filed by the complainant against the revisionist in which only damage to Naad, Khunta and mandavi was alleged and allegation of setting the mandavi on fire was not made. Thus there was contradiction. On these pleas it was alleged that the complaint be dismissed.

( 5 ) IN Instant case the main point for consideration is as to whether the complaint can be dismissed before the accused appeared before the Court, filed bail bonds and the case had proceeded up to the stage of charge where argument could be heard about the charge being framed or the accused being discharged.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has cited AIR 1972 SC 2639, Nirmalji Singh v. State of West Bengal, in which it has been held by Honble the Apex Court that: "no doubt, one of the objects behind provisions of Section 202 Cr. P. C. is to enable the Magistrate to scrutinize carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as an accused from being called upon to face an obviously frivolous complaint. But there is also another object behind this provision and it is to find out what material is there to support the allegation made in the complaint. It is the bounden duty of the magistrate while making an inquiry to elicit all facts not merely with a view to protect the interest of an absent accused person but also with a view to bring to book a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made. Whether the complaint is frivolous or not has, at that stage, necessarily to be determined on the basis of the material placed before him by the complainant. "

( 7 ) IN AIR 1992 SC 1815 : (1992 Cri LJ 2916), Punjab National Bank v. Surendra prasad Sinha, ft has been held by Honble apex Court that relevant facts and circumstances should be considered before issuing the process under Section 204 Cr. P. C. The process issued mechanically on the basis of the complaint filed as vendetta to harass persons deserves to be quashed because judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take