The Magistrate is justified in summoning the accused-revisionists for the offences under Sections 498-A/504 of the IPC based on the material on record, which disclosed a prima facie case against them.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision against the order dated 16-7-1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in complaint case No. 338 of 1998, Anjana Srivastava v. Prasoon Srivastava whereby he directed the summoning of the accused-revisionists for the offences under Sections 498-A/504, I. P. C.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to this revision are that Smt. Anjana Srivastava wife of Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava (opposite party No. 2) filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh on 3-6-1998 against the revisionists. Prasoon Kumar Srivastava, Revisionist No. 1, is the elder brother of the husband of the complainant opposite party No. 2; Smt. Neeta Srivastava, revisionist No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant while Triloki Nath Srivastava, Revisionist No. 3, is the father-in-law of the complainant. The allegations made in the complaint were that the complainant Smt. Anjana Srivastava was married to Pradeep Srivastava on 1-12-1995 according to Hindu Customs and went in Biato the house of the accused-revisionists that in the marriage her father had spent money beyond his means and even given Rs. 2,50,000. 00 to the accused-revisionists 1 and 3 for the purposes of getting a computer school opened by her husband but even after receiving the said money, they kept on treating her with cruelty; that on 13-11-1996, a daughter was born to her; that the accused-revisionists started pressing her to bring one lac rupees from her father otherwise she would be beaten and turned out from the house; that on 10-4-1998, at about 4. 00 p. m. , when her husband was not in the house, the accused-revisionists asked her to telephone her father to give Rs. 1 lac whereupon she said that her father had already given Rs. 2,50,000. 00 to them on the pretext that they would get a computer school opened for her husband and that they have committed breach of trust with her father and they (the revisionists) are now demanding the money again; that on this, she was badly beaten by the accused-revisionist and was turned out from the house along with her infant daughter and at that time, she was threatened that in case she would come back, she would be killed. She further claimed in her complaint that she had given information about the occurrence to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh personally but since there was no hope of getting justice from the police, she filed the complaint in Court.

( 4 ) IN support of her complaint she repealed the allegations on oath besides herself, she examined her husband Pradeep Kumar Srivastava and one Sri Umesh Lal Srivastava under Section 202, Cr. P. C. Her husband Pradeep Kumar Srivastava in his statement on oath under Section 202, Cr. P. C. claimed that his father-in-law had given Rs. 2,50,000. 00 at the asking of his elder brother Prasoon Kumar Srivastava, accused-revisionist No. 1, for opening of a computer school but that money was digested by his father and a breach of trust was committed; that after birth of a daughter, they started harassing her and demanded one lac rupees more and threatened her. He also testified in his statement that she was turned out from the house by the accused-revisionists. Umesh Lal also supported her case about the demand of dowery of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 for getting a computer school opened for her husband; digesting of money by her father-in-law Triloki Nath Srivastava, revisionist No. 3 and also about the harassment and ill-treatment to her. He has also testified about her turning out from the house.

( 5 ) OBVIOUSLY, there was enough material on record before the learned Magistrate to warrant the summoning of the accused-revisionists for the offences under the aforesaid sections. In doing so, the learned Magistrate has only to see whether there is existence of a prima facie case on the assumption that what was stated would be true unless the prosecution allegations were so fantastic that they could not reaso