Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 15th March, 2001, passed by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Katni, in Criminal Revision No. 25/95, so also the order dated 3rd May, 1995, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katni, in Criminal Case No. 5226/94, and makes a prayer that the respondents be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the IPC. ( 2. ) A perusal of papers submitted on behalf of the petitioner discloses that on 3rd May, 1995, the learned A. C. J. M. , Katni, discharged the respondents for offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the IPC on a consideration of judgment dated 27th April, 1995, delivered by the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Katni, in Civil Suit No. 295-A/95. The petitioner then assailed the aforesaid order of discharge in Criminal Revision No. 25/95, before 1st A. S. J. , Katni, who disallowed and rejected the same on 15th March, 2001, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Referring the case of Nagarpalika Officer, Bhander v. Rajendra Singh Sengar, reported in 1971 Cr. LJ 381 (DB), it is opined by the learned A. S. J. , Katni, that in the trial of a summon case, even the order of discharge has the effect of acquittal. ( 3. ) IT is pointed out by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case that where the trial of a summon case is valid, it must end either in conviction or in acquittal, as no third kind of order is contemplated. It is also found explained by this Court in aforesaid case that even if the word "discharge" is used by the Magistrate, it must be read as acquittal. The relevant para of the Nagar Palika Officer (supra), runs as under :- "6. As a result of this discussion, the law may be summed up thus :-- (1) Where a Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try a summons case, the trial is void and consequently an order of conviction or acquittal is also void because there is no trial at all. In such a case the proceedings must terminate with an order of discharge of the accused. In such a case the proceedings must terminate with an order of discharge of the accused. (2) Where a trial of a summons case is void for want of sanction or for such other reason, then also the conviction or acquittal will be void and the proceedings must terminate in an order of discharge. (3) But when the trial of a summons case is valid, it must end either in conviction or in acquittal. No third kind of order is contemplated. Even the word discharge is used by the Magistrate, it must be read as acquittal. " ( 4. ) SINCE the offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC has to be tried as a summons case, as per law, therefore, the trial of non-applicants for offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the IPC in Criminal Case No. 5226/94, was valid. Consequently, the order dated 3rd May, 1995 passed by the learned A. C. J. M. , Katni, in Criminal Case No. 5226/94, shall be treated to be an order of acquittal. The remedy against the order of acquittal is provided in appeal under Section 378 of the Cr. PC and therefore, the learned 1st A. S. J. , Katni, is found to have committed no illegality or perversity in recording this finding that Revision No. 25/95, was not maintainable against the order dated 3rd May, 1995, passed by A. C. J. M. , Katni, in Criminal Case No. 5226/94, and hence he had no jurisdiction to try the ease. ( 5. ) THUS, in the absence of any mis-carriage of justice, what pf grave, this petition does not merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at the stage of motion hearing.