JUDGMENT :- Petitioner is father of deceased Aashabai. Aashabai married Ashok Yeshwant Baviskar in the year 1985. Two daughters, namely Pratibha, aged 8 years and Neelima aged 6 years and son namely Nikhil aged 3 years were born within the wedlock. Husband of Aashabai was serving in Ordnance Factory at Varangaon and was living in a quarter allotted to him with his wife and children. 2. On 26th January, 1996; Ashok (husband of the deceased) attended Flag hoisting Ceremony and returned to the house 12.00 noon. At that time, his sister Yashoda had come to their house. There was an exchange of words between deceased Ashabai and her husband Ashok. The deceased accused her husband that he tortures at the instigation of his sister Yashoda. This led to a quarrel, during which Ashok slapped the deceased, as a result, deceased got annoyed, poured kerosene over her and set herself on fire. She was first admitted to a Municipal Hospital at Bhusawal, where her statement was recorded by the Head Constable. On the basis of this statement, offence came to be registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against husband Ashok and sister-in-law Yashoda. 3. The petitioner, however, made a grievance that the investigation was not properly done. At Bhusawal, his daughter made a statement regarding her ill-treatment at the hands of her brother-in-law Tukaram, Dyaneshwar, mother-in-law Rasabai and sisterin-law Pratibha, wife of Tukaram, but this statement was not recorded. Thus, he made a complaint to the high-ranking police officers. Finally, the petitioner filed a private case being R.C.C.No. 27/1996. In that case, in the beginning, report of the police officer was called, under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. This report made a reference to the oral dying declaration, on the basis of which, offence is registered against her husband and sister-in-law Yashoda. As this was a complaint in respect of the offence which was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate recorded the statements of seven witnesses produced by the complainant, including Vitthal Onkar Patil, who recorded 2nd dying declaration in the Civil Hospital at Jalgaon. 4. After considering the material on record, learned Magistrate issued process against all the seven accused by his order dated 17.02.1998. Against this order of issue of process, two separate revision applications were filed. 4. After considering the material on record, learned Magistrate issued process against all the seven accused by his order dated 17.02.1998. Against this order of issue of process, two separate revision applications were filed. Revision Application filed by husband and his relatives, came to be rejected, whereas the Revision Application filed by respondent no.1, who is cousin brother of husband of the deceased, and a practising Advocate, regarding issue of process .against him, came to be allowed by order dated 2nd July, 1998. This order has been impugned in the present revision petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the contents of para 3 of the private complaint which refer to respondent no.1. According to learned Counsel, at the stage of issue of process, it was not necessary to consider the evidence on merits. The contention that there is no material against respondent no. 1 which should have been considered at the time of framing of the charge. According to learned Counsel, the order of revisional court is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, according to the learned Counsel for the respondents the revisional court has considered all the legal and factual aspects and has rightly arrived at the conclusion that issuance of process against respondent no. 1 was not justified. No illegality can be found with the order passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. Therefore, no interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction is called for. 7. The principles to be applied at the stage of issuance of process are now well settled. The Magistrate has to apply his mind to the facts placed before him. If he comes to a conclusion that prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate can issue process against the accused. Application of mind by the Magistrate, even at this stage of issue of process, is sine qua non. In a case of several accused, if there is no material against some of them, the issue of process against these accused cannot be justified. In this behalf, reference can be made to a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 128 : [1998 ALL MR (Cri) 144 (S.C.)] in the matter of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. In this behalf, reference can be made to a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 128 : [1998 ALL MR (Cri) 144 (S.C.)] in the matter of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. In para 28, the Apex Court observed that: "Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 8. Summoning of the accused can be quashed in a revision only on following grounds, namely, i) where the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence adduced in support of allegations do not constitute any offence taking the material at its face value; ii) where the allegations and the evidence produced is inherently improbable and a prudent man will reach a conclusion on the basis of such evidence that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; and iii) where a Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction arbitrarily or capriciously or on the basis of evidence which is wholly inadmissible and where the complaint suffers from a fundamental defect such as want of sanction. 9. In the present case, it was contended before learned Sessions Judge that issue of process being an interlocutory order, revision application is not maintainable. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly upheld this contention. 9. In the present case, it was contended before learned Sessions Judge that issue of process being an interlocutory order, revision application is not maintainable. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly upheld this contention. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Adalat Prasad Vs. Ruplal Jindal and Ors., reported in (2004)7 SCC 338 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3131 (S.C.)], learned Counsel for the petitioner has conceded this point, therefore, it is not necessary to dilate on this aspect. 10. Learned Sessions Judge has referred to the allegations in para 3 of the complaint, alongwith report filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and copy of F.I.R. filed on record by the complainant. In the F.I.R., the deceased made allegations only against Yashodabai and her husband. Therefore, offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against these two persons in the beginning. After death of Aashabai, penal Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. So far as the allegations in the complaint case are concerned, it is conceded by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in para 3 of the complaint, in the beginning, reference is made to accused nos.3, 4, 5, and 6. Name of accused no.7 is casually mentioned only at the end of the narration. Not only this, in the concluding portion of para 3, the allegations are restricted only to accused nos.3, 4, 5 and 6. It can be seen that learned Sessions Judge was also dealing with the Sessions Case. It is observed by the learned Sessions Judge that respondent no. 1 appeared for the husband and his other relatives and had filed an application for bail. The contention that for this reason respondent no. 1 (original accused no.7) was implicated in the private complaint, which was subsequently filed, has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge in view of the material placed on record. It can be seen that the main allegations are levelled against husband of the deceased, his brother, mother and sister-in-Iaws. Respondent No.1 is a cousin brother of the husband of the deceased. Except a passing reference in para 3 of the complaint, there is no allegation against respondent no.1. It can also be seen that none of the witnesses, except the petitioner has made any reference to respondent no.1. Respondent No.1 is admittedly a cousin brother of the husband of deceased. Except a passing reference in para 3 of the complaint, there is no allegation against respondent no.1. It can also be seen that none of the witnesses, except the petitioner has made any reference to respondent no.1. Respondent No.1 is admittedly a cousin brother of the husband of deceased. There is nothing on record to show that he was concerned with the alleged harassment of the deceased. The deceased herself has not made any allegations against respondent no. 1, therefore, it cannot be said that there is sufficient material, warranting issue of process against respondent no. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plea of discharge of respondent no. 1 could have been raised at the time of framing of the charge and respondent no. 1 could have pressed for discharge. This is not a valid argument. If there is no material on record justifying issue of process against him, respondent no. 1 is entitled to challenge the order regarding issue of process. In the present case, learned Sessions Judge has considered all the pros and cons and has come to the correct conclusion that there is no material to warrant issue of process agaiD8l respondent no.1. While coming to this conclusion, learned Sessions Judge did not analyze the evidence. He has accepted the material on record as it is. Therefore, no fault can be found with the conclusions arrived at by learned Sessions Judge. Thus, the contention that the order of learned Sessions Judge suffers from an illegality, cannot be sustained. No ground for interference with order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is thus, made out. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. Revision Application dismissed.