JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Heard Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal for the petitioner and Mrs. Jyoti S. Pawar for respondent No. 3, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been served but have not engaged any Counsel. 2.By means of this revision application, the petitioner (original complainant) impugns the order dated 18-11-91, passed by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application No. 111 of 1990, whereby the order dated 20-10-89, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri-Chinchwad, issuing process against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for offence under section 500 I.P.C., was quashed. 3.The relevant facts may be stated in short. Respondents No. 1 Smt. Muktabai Atmaram Gaikwad and respondent No. 2 Shri Milind Atmaram Gaikwad are wife and son of the petitioner (original complainant) respectively. The allegation in the complaint is that they were asking the petitioner to mutate their names in the property which the petitioner refused. It is alleged that thereafter, they started telling the relations that the petitioner was a lunatic and hence defamed him in the eyes of the relatives and the society. It is further alleged that respondent No. 1 complained at the Pimpri Police Station that the petitioner being a lunatic should be sent to a mental asylum and in pursuance to the said complaint, he was sent. On the aforesaid facts, the Judicial Magistrate was pleased to issue a process under section 500 of I.P.C. against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As mentioned in para 1, the said respondents challenged the summons through a criminal revision and the summons were quashed and the complaint dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner (original complainant) has approached this Court through the present revision. 4.In my view, the impugned order warrants no interference. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has taken the view that the petitioner was sent to the Mental Asylum in accordance with the procedure established by law. He has observed that the procedure contained in the Indian Lunacy Act which is that the lunatic should be first produced before the competent Magistrate and thereafter, be admitted to a Mental Asylum, has been followed. In my view, the Addl. Sessions Judge was right in concluding that it could not be inferred that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were very near relations of the petitioner had any mala fide intention. In the circumstances of the present case, the Addl. In my view, the Addl. Sessions Judge was right in concluding that it could not be inferred that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were very near relations of the petitioner had any mala fide intention. In the circumstances of the present case, the Addl. Sessions Judge felt that it was not correct on the part of the learned trial Magistrate to issue process against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 without further enquiry by the police (as contemplated by section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code). 5.In my view, both legally and from the angle of larger considerations of justice, the order issuing summons against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. wife and son of the petitioner was not proper and therefore, the Addl. Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the same and in dismissing the complaint. 6.In the result, this revision is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Revision dismissed.