Suneet Kumar, J.

1. This revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 2 March 2016, passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 4270 of 2008 (Shyama Devi Vs. Manoj and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, P.S. Daraganj, District Allahabad, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge application filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.

2. The facts would reveal that the revisionist was summoned in a complaint under Section 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, upon recording statement of the complainant under Section 200 and of his witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The revisionist while assailing the summoning order would contend that the statement recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C is not reliable and false statement. Learned Magistrate rejected the application recording in the impugned order that prima facie, the ingredients of the offence is disclosed from the statements, further, sufficiency of the evidence is not to be gone into at the stage of summoning.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the case set up by the opposite party is false case and would contend that the fact of the case