N. R. ASTHANA, J. ( 1 ) THE revisionist filed a complaint against the opposite parties under Sections 395/397/342/166/167 and 217/218 I. P. C. in the court of C. I. M. Sonbhadra alleging in brief, that on 23-1-1991 at about 7-00 P. M. he was at the door of his house when the opposite parties armed with lathi, danda, axe and guns came to his house, and started looting his articles whereupon he and the members of his family protested upon which, they beat them up with lath is and threatened to kill with gun. They caused injuries to the complainant, Ghanshiam, Raj Bahadur and also to the complainants mother and grandmother. One of them Patangi Mishni was apprehended at the spot by the persons who had collected the thereupon hearing the hue and cry. The complainants report was not taken down at the police Station. On the other hand he was arrested and put inside the Hawalat on the F. I. R. filed by one Adya Prasad at the instance of the opposite parties under Sections 147, 323, 427, 436, 407, 308 and 506 I. P. C. The complainant sent applications to higher authorities but without any result and then the complaint was filed. ( 2 ) THE complainant examined himself, Raj Bahadur, Ghanshyam, Deo Pandey, Smt. Jilewa Devi, Smt. Dilwanti, Ramdu, Devendra Nath and Dr. Ramji Singh who had examined the injured persons. The C. J. M. summoned the opposite parties for the offence punishable under Section 3951397 I. P. C. Aggrieved by it the opposite parties filed Criminal Revision No. 29 of 1993 which was allowed on 25-1-1995 by learned II Addi. Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra. The order in question was set aside and the case was remanded to the C. J. M. for recording further evidence in the case and then pass an appropriate order. Aggrieved by it the complainant has approached this Court by way of revision. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The order in question was set aside and the case was remanded to the C. J. M. for recording further evidence in the case and then pass an appropriate order. Aggrieved by it the complainant has approached this Court by way of revision. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It has been argued that no revision lies against the summoning order and as such the lower revisional court acted beyond jurisdiction in entertaining the revision and setting aside the summoning order passed by C. J. M. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the opposite parties that there are other authoritative pronouncements which were not considered while holding that no revision lies against summoning order and therefore the question whether revision lies against summoning order should be referred to a larger Bench. ( 4 ) AS the matter can be decided on merits without referring the matter to a larger Bench, I am proceeding to decide it accordingly as reference to a larger Bench may delay the matter. This should not, however, be taken to mean that the question whether revision lies against the summoning order, is a question which needs determination by a larger Bench or that revision against the summoning orders maintainable. ( 5 ) THE lower revisional court was of the opinion that the court below should have recorded the statements of all the witnesses of the complainant before summoning the opposite parties. In particular, it was pointed out that the statement of another doctor who had examined Raj Bahadur Deo and Ghanshyam Deo should have been recorded, even though on the basis of the law laid down in Satya Deo Pande v. State, 1987 Allahabad Criminal Rulings 223 it was of the opinion that the complainant has right to choose whom to produce and whom not to produce. It however, observed that in cases triable by the Court of Session, it is the duty of the Magistrate to see that all the witnesses are examined whose evidence may have, bearing upon the facts of the case. As it is not necessary for the Magistrate to examine all the available witnesses, it cannot be said that the Magistrate committed any error in not recording the statement of all the witnesses before summoning the accused. As it is not necessary for the Magistrate to examine all the available witnesses, it cannot be said that the Magistrate committed any error in not recording the statement of all the witnesses before summoning the accused. In case the trial court comes to the, conclusion that the examination of the doctor is necessary in the interest of justice then there is no bar in summoning the doctor as a court witness. ( 6 ) THE revisional court has also remarked that from the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant no special offence appears to have been made out. The lower revisional court has not recorded any clear cut finding as to whether offence under Sections 395/397 I. P. C. has been made out. In the absence of any such clear-cut finding the above observation of the lower revisional court is of no consequence. ( 7 ) THE lower revisional court has further observed that the Magistrate without applying his mind to the facts of the case has summoned the opposite parties. While passing the summoning order under Section 204 Cr. P. C. a Magistrate is not required to pass a speaking order. The order of the Magistrate would, however, show that he perused the statements of the witnesses and the documents filed in the case and then passed the order summoning the accused. Four persons are said to have been injured from the side of the revisionist. Two of them are ladies. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no material before the Magistrate for summoning the opposite parties. ( 8 ) IN view of the discussion above I am of the view that the judgment and order of the lower revisional court cannot be sustained. The revision has, therefore, to be allowed. The revision is allowed. The impugned order of the lower revisional court is set aside. C. J. M. Sonbhadra is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Revision allowed. .