JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - Petitioners have been convicted u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/ - each, in default to undergo R.I. for one month each. 2. The complaint was filed against 12 persons including the 5 Petitioners. The specific offences mentioned in the complain t petition were under Sections 323, and 447, Indian Penal Code. The recitals in the body of the complaint petition are not very clear but might indicate commission of offence u/s 147, Indian Penal Code by all, u/s 341, Indian Penal Code by Petitioner No. 1 and u/s 323, Indian Penal Code by the Petitioners. The complainant wag examined on oath under section:200, Code of Criminal Procedure on 27-5-1965 The Magistrate took cognizance u/s 323, Indian Penal Code only against the Petitioners. On 3-7-l965 the particulars of the offence u/s 323 were explained to the Petitioners of who pleaded not guilty. On that very day the Magistrate ordered that the case should be summarily tried. After summary trial, the conviction and sentence were passed. The defence plea was one of complete denial. 3. Mr. Dhal does not challenge the conviction as not being based on evidence or the sentence being severe. The only point urged by him is that when the complaint petition disclosed offences under Sections 147 and 341, Indian Penal Code which were not summarily triable u/s 260. Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue process against the accused only u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and try the case summarily, that the judgment is void and the case should he retried. This contention requires careful examination. 4. As has already been stated, the specific offences mentioned in the complaint petition are Sections 323 and 447, Indian Penal Code. The complaint petition has been drafted in a confused manner. It does not clearly disclose an offence u/s 147, Indian Penal Code. 5. This contention requires careful examination. 4. As has already been stated, the specific offences mentioned in the complaint petition are Sections 323 and 447, Indian Penal Code. The complaint petition has been drafted in a confused manner. It does not clearly disclose an offence u/s 147, Indian Penal Code. 5. "Rioting" has been defined in Section 147, Indian Penal Code thus- Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting." Though acts of violence are alleged against the Petitioner, there is no mention in the complaint petition that force or violence was used by these members in prosecution of the common object of such assembly. The statement on oath merely discloses an offence u/s 323, Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners. The entire statement on oath may be extracted I complain against Durga charan Rana and 18 others. Day-before-yesterday at about 8 p.m. they were holding a meeting. When I passed that way, they called me. Durga Charan caught hold of me. Then others gave me fist blows and slaps. Pahali, Bikali, Daitari Prusti and Daityari Biswal assaulted me. Bikali gave me a lathi blow on my head. They pushed me to a Kia-fence. I got injury on my back. I have lodged information at Mangalpur O.P. The learned Magistrate was right in issuing processes only against the Petitioners u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. 6. One of the objects of examining the complainant on oath is to test the truth of the complaint. A complaint sometimes contains unfounded allegations. It is the duty of the Court to see 'that innocent persons are not subjected to the annoyance of frivolous charges and there is no wastage of time of the Court. 7. Merely because grave offences are mentioned in the complaint petition, the Court is not bound to issue processes in respect of those offences. If after examination of the complainants on oath, the Court is of opinion that the allegations 01 facts regarding major offences are unfounded and is satisfied that a 'Prima facie case exists regarding minor offence, it is open to it to issue process only for the minor offence and try the case summarily. If after examination of the complainants on oath, the Court is of opinion that the allegations 01 facts regarding major offences are unfounded and is satisfied that a 'Prima facie case exists regarding minor offence, it is open to it to issue process only for the minor offence and try the case summarily. In such a case, the summary trial cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the judgment is not void Arunendu Prokash Bose v. Pulin Behari Roy Chowdhury ILR 1953. Cal. 162. 8. Mr. Dhal placed reliance on Balwant Singh and Others Vs. Emperor ill support of his wide contention that if the complaint petition contains' allegations regarding grave offences, the Court has no jurisdiction for summary trial. That case is wholly distinguishable and should not have been cited. In that case, the Magistrate convicted the accused persons u/s 452, Indian Penal Code in a summary trial which was not summarily triable. That by itself was sufficient to make the judgment void. The allegations in the complaint clearly disclosed offence's under Sections 147 and 452, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued summons u/s 452, Indian Penal Code. He did not record any order to the effect that he did not believe any part of the case put forward by the complainant under Sections 147 and 452. Indian Penal Code. The evidence, produced by the complainant supported his allegations made in the complaint. That case is no authority for the proposition that the Magistrate is bound to issue processes in respect of several offences made out in the complaint petition. The purpose of examination on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses present in Court on that day after the amendment of 1955 is to separate the chaff from the grain and issue processes in respect of offences of which a prima facie case is made out. 9. The revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed