N. L. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision directed against the order dated 17-6-1994 passed by the First Additional Munsif Magistrate, Bijnor in Criminal Complaint Case No. 23 of 1994 Laxman v. Satyapal under S. 302/34, I. P. C. , P. S. Chandpur, district Bijnor, whereby the revisionists have been summoned u/s. 204, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) IHAVE heard Sri Veer Singh learned counsel for the revisionists, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri K. M. Garg counsel for opposite party No. 2. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has contended that the learned Magistrate has committed an illegality by not examining all the witnesses in the inquiry under S. 202, Cr. P. C. learned Additional Public Prosecutor replied that the learned Magistrate called upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses for inquiry under S. 202, Cr. P. C. and the complainant produced five witnesses who have been examined by the learned Magistrate and thereupon the learned Magistrate after perusal of the testimony of the five witnesses and other documents came to the conclusion that there is a reasonable ground for proceeding further again the accused persons. I have also perused the impugned order of the learned Magistrate and find that the Magistrate has called upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses, but the complainant has produced only five witnesses and other documents. Learned Magistrate has after perusal of the evidence come to the conclusion that there is reasonable ground to proceed further and consequently he has summoned the accused revisionists. The requirement of S. 202, Cr. Learned Magistrate has after perusal of the evidence come to the conclusion that there is reasonable ground to proceed further and consequently he has summoned the accused revisionists. The requirement of S. 202, Cr. P. C. has been fulfilled by the learned Magistrate and there does not appear to be any illegality in the impugned order of summoning the revisionists to answer the charge under S. 302/34, I. P. C. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have invited my attention to several judgments in support of respective contentions : cases referred on behalf of opposite party respondent No. 2 are as under : (I) 1990 All Cri R 545, para 4; (ii) 1990 All Cri R 1, para 10; (iii) 1989 All Cri R 359, paras 13 and 16; (iv) 1988 Cri LJ 298, para 16a page 306 (Raj); (v) Al R 1976 SC 1947: (1976 Cri LJ 1533); (vi) 1991 All Cri C 372 and 373. Cases referred on behalf of revisionists are as under : (I) 1984 Cri LJ 359 (sic); (ii) 1990 Cri LJ 2525 (All); (iii) AIR 1987 Kant 183, 184; (iv) 1977 Cri LJ 1492 (Cal ). Aftergoing through the judgments referred to above, I do not consider necessary to reproduce the facts of those cases and to highlight the points involved in those cases. The legal position has however been made clear from the very language of the provisions of S. 202, Cr. P. C. It is mandatory that the Magistrate before issuing processes to the accused of a complaint disclosing an offence exclusively triable by a Court of Session shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. In the present case, the Magistrate has complied with this mandate of law by calling upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses. The complainant has in his wisdom examined five witnesses only which implies that the other witnesses, if any, cited in the complaint will not be produced by him before the Sessions Court. The Magistrate while holding an inquiry under S. 202, Cr. P. C. is bound to call up complainant to produce all his witnesses and on production of all the witnesses the Magistrate is also bound to record their evidence because he cannot refuse to record the evidence of any of the witnesses. The Magistrate while holding an inquiry under S. 202, Cr. P. C. is bound to call up complainant to produce all his witnesses and on production of all the witnesses the Magistrate is also bound to record their evidence because he cannot refuse to record the evidence of any of the witnesses. But if the complainant decides to produce only some of the witnesses named in the complaint the Magistrate cannot force the complainant to produce the remaining witnesses. However it is open for the Magistrate to form his own opinion on the available evidence of the witnesses and material on record whether he finds a reasonable ground for proceeding to summon the accused persons for the offences alleged or for the offences prima facie made but by the available evidence. This is a judicial discretion to be exercised by the Court of Magistrate on the basis of the available evidence which he has properly exercised in the present case. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order of summoning the revisionists as accused persons for the alleged offence under S. 302 read with S. 34, I. P. C. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has further contended that in view of the affidavits filed by some of the witnesses produced by the complainant, a case is not prima facie made out and this Court should interfere in the matter by quashing the impugned order of summoning passed under S. 203, Cr. P. C. The revisionists have of course filed affidavits, supplementary affidavit enclosing copies of some affidavits and other documents in order to substantiate the contention raised by the learned counsel. I have gone through these affidavits, but, I am affraid that I cannot record any finding on the basis of these documents because it is the discretion of the Magistrate summoning accused persons under S. 204, Cr. P. C. The Honble Supreme Court has emphaticallv laid down the correct law in this regard in the case of Smt. Nagawa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa, AIR 1976 SC 1947 : (1976 Cri LJ 1553) in the following words :". . . . . . . P. C. The Honble Supreme Court has emphaticallv laid down the correct law in this regard in the case of Smt. Nagawa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa, AIR 1976 SC 1947 : (1976 Cri LJ 1553) in the following words :". . . . . . . That at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led insupport of the same and he has only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter in to detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case nor can, the High Court go into this matter in its revisional jurisdiction. The scope of the enquiry u/s. 302 is extremely limited. It is true that in coming to a decision as to whether process should be issued, the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant, but there appears to be a very thin line of demarcation between a probability of conviction of the accused and establishment of prima facie case against him. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court or even to the Supreme Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considerations are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry u/s. 202 which culminates into an order u/ S. 204. . . . . . . " ( 6 ) THIS Court cannot therefore make its own assesment on the basis of the material produced by the revisionists against the impugned order of their summoning u/s. 204, Cr. P. C. and cannot substitute its finding of the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate in exercise of his judicial discretion vested in him u/ S. 204, Cr. P. C. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionists is therefore rejected. ( 7 ) THERE is no merit in this revision and the impugned order is perfectly legal and proper. Therefore the revision is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Revision dismissed.