SURYA PRASAD, J. This is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 15th November, 1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mau in Criminal Case No. 7 of 1991-State v. Sheo Nath Verma and others under Section 304-B, IPC and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, summoning the revisionists. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionists has referred to the Dying declaration, statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P, C. Final report and protest application and has argued that no case has been made out against the revisionists, and yet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau has summoned the revisionists in a mechanical manner through his impugned order and therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. The learned counsel for the revisionists has not, however, referred to or advanced his argument on the post-mortem report. 4. The learned counsel for the informant/complainant has, on the other hand, argued that the alleged Dying declaration is a manipulated document, that the statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. is not a conclusive piece of evidence, and that it is used for contradiction or corroboration only during the trial. He has also argued that the deceased Smt. Indu was burnt 98%. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionists has not pointed out any thing in the course of his arguments such as to indicate that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, has committed illegality, material irregularity of impropriety in passing the impugned order. The Magistrate has passed the impugned order not in a mechanical manner, but after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record. It is the judicial discretion of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to summon the revisionists accused. He has exercised his discretion judicially and judiciously while summoning the revisionists. 6. The revisionist No. 3, Smt. Jiuti Devi is the mother-in-law of the deceased, whereas Simati alias Surekha, Indu, Kumari Kiran and Kumari Rita are her husbands sisters. It is on the basis of these facts that the learned :counsel for the revisionists has ultimately, in the alternative, argued that the interest of these revisionists Nos. 3 to 7 should be safeguarded. In this con nection, he has referred to Ram Dewan Singh v. Stale and another, 1990 (27) ACrc630. 7. It is on the basis of these facts that the learned :counsel for the revisionists has ultimately, in the alternative, argued that the interest of these revisionists Nos. 3 to 7 should be safeguarded. In this con nection, he has referred to Ram Dewan Singh v. Stale and another, 1990 (27) ACrc630. 7. In the result the revision is dismissed with the direction that the revisionists Nos. 4 to 7, namely, Simati alias Surekha, Indu, Kumari Kiran and Kumari Rita respectively shall voluntarily appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who will not take them into judicial custody until he commits the case to the Sessions Court. He shall require these revisionists Nos. 4 to 7 to furnish bonds with or without sureties for their attendance on future dates. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take care to commit the case to the Sessions Court in the early part of the day. These revisionists Nos. 4 to 7 shall be at liberty to apply for bail to the learned Sessions J udge concerned, who will dispose of their bail application/applications same day. There does not appear any necessity to give direction in regard to the revisionists Nos. ; to 3. The stay order stands vacated. Revision dismissed. .