SURYA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision against the order dated 2nd December, 1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehari Garhwal in Criminal Revision No.- 27 of 1983 allowing the revision filed by the opposite-party No. 2 and modifying the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehari Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 364 of 1983. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. ( 2 ) THE complainant had made a complaint against as many as 14 persons. The evidence is the same against all of them. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned has, however, summoned only 1 to 8, out of 14 persons. He has not summoned 9 to 14 persons/accused, who are revisionists in the present revision. This indicates that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned has implidely dismissed the complaint against those revisionists. Section 203 Cr. P. C. reads as under:203. If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202 the Magistrate is opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. ( 3 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not recorded any reason for implidely dismissing the complaint or for not summoning the revisionists and, therefore, he has not followed the mandatory provisions of the aforesaid Section 203 Cr. P. C. in passing the order dated 3rd October, 1983. ( 4 ) I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in revision filed against the aforesaid order dated 3rd October, 1983. The learned Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality, material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned order. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists to the contrary is not tenable. ( 5 ) ALL the revisionists are women. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will summon them along with all the case-accused for aparticular date. The revisionists should not however be put to any humiliation or harassment. Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to dispose of their bail application/applications same day, bail them out on each of them furnishing personal bond to his satisfaction. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will summon them along with all the case-accused for aparticular date. The revisionists should not however be put to any humiliation or harassment. Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to dispose of their bail application/applications same day, bail them out on each of them furnishing personal bond to his satisfaction. He is also directed to dispense with their personal attendance through their counsel. They (revisionists) will, however, present selves in the court as and when required during the trial. ( 6 ) WITH the above observations the revision is dismissed. The impugned order is up-held. The stay order dated 9th February, 1984 is vacated. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned at-once so as to enable it to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Petition dismissed. .