A Magistrate must ensure sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused without engaging in a trial-like analysis of evidence.

1. Heard Sri. Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 17.7.2010 passed by ACJM, Court No. 1, Varanasi in final report No. 15 of 2010 under S.323, S.308, S.504, S.506 IPC, Police Station Rohania, District Varanasi whereby the final report submitted by the police was accepted and protest petition filed by revisionist - complainant was rejected.

3. The facts are that the revisionist - complainant Sunil Kumar Agarwal and the accused Ashok Kumar and Anil Kumar are real brothers. They live in the same house. On 22.1.2003, a FIR was lodged by the complainant at Police Station Rohania, District Varanasi stating therein that there was a dispute with the accused persons due to partition of the property in respect of which, FIR was earlier lodged on 19.12.2009 against the accused persons at P.S. Mughal Sarai, which was registered at crime No.544 of 2009 under S.341, S.352, S.504, S.506 IPC. On 31.12.2009, at about 7:00 p.m., the complainant and few of his friends and relatives had made a programme to celebrate the New Year Eve at 'Thikana Dhaba', Shahababad, P.S. Rohania. The complainant started for the appointed place by his Scorpio car with his driver Devendra Kumar Dubey. At about 6:00 p.m., a little ahead of Mazar in village Bairwan, accused persons accompanied by two other companions overtook them in a Swift Dzire Car and stopped them. The complainant was pulled down from the vehicle. Anil Kumar armed with hockey and Ashok Kumar armed with knife started beating the complainant. The other two unknown persons threatened his driver Devendra Kumar Dubey. Head injuries were caused to the complainant. The complainant went to Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Government Hospital and got himself medically examined. On 1.1.2010, a written report was submitted at P. S. Rohania, but report was not lodged. On the same day, a dasti report was handed over at the Office of D.I.G., Varanasi and again on 2.1.2010, it was sent by registered post. There were serious injuries on the head. C.T. Scan was performed and fracture was found in the head.

4. After investigation, final report was submitted by the police. The complainant filed protest petition against the final report. Learned Magistrate accepted the final report and rejected the protest petition. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Magistrate rejected the protest petition on irrelevant grounds and Magistrate was not entitled to analyze the evidence in a manner as if he was deciding a criminal trial. Magistrate had only to find out whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case. It was contended that there was sufficient material in the case diary on the basis of which the Magistrate ought to have summoned the accused to face trial. It was further contended that the complainant had fully corroborated the FIR version in his statement under S.161 CrPC. His driver also corroborated the statement of the complainant. The medical evidence also supported the version of the complainant even though learned Magistrate found fault with the evidence and accepted the final report. It was contended that if the Magistrate was not satisfied with the material available in the case diary, it was open to the Magistrate to treat the protest petition as a complaint and could have proceeded under S.200 and S.202, CrPC.

6. It was also submitted that the affidavits of Devendra Kumar Dubey, the driver and Kamlesh Mishra and Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, the independent witnesses were also filed b