JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surendra Singh, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by ACJM Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), in case No. 209 of 2008, the revisionist preferred a revision which was numbered as 54 of 2008, before the Sessions Judge, Bhadohi which was also dismissed by the revisional Court by order dated 23.6.2008. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA and have also perused the entire materials placed on record. Notices to respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are not required to be sent as no adverse order has been passed against them by the Courts below. 3. Encapsulated facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant, Sanjai Kumar Chaurasiya (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) on 24.1.2008 in the Court of ACJM Bhadohi, at Gyanpur against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 which was registered as criminal case No. 209 of 2008. It was alleged in the complaint that despite the order of the status quo passed by the Hon’ble High Court, on 16.12.2007 at about 6.30 p.m., the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 with the common intention came on the bhumidhari land of the petitioner having armed with motely weapons such as axe, lathi, danda etc. started cutting the trees and bushes and when the petitioner stopped them from doing so, on the instigation of the opposite party No. 2, all of them entered into the house of the petitioner and caused injuries with lathi, danda, kicks and fists and thereupon when the mother of the petitioner and brother, Munna Lal and Ajai Kumar came for his rescue, they too were assaulted. The opposite party No. 2, Hari Shanker thereafter, fired with his country made pistol causing panic terror in the family. It has been further alleged that soon after, the father of the petitioner also arrived there and he was also beaten by Suresh, Mahesh, Ajit and Awadesh Kumar and a sum of Rs. 7000/- (a day’s sale amount) was snatched from his pocket and co-accused Algoo, thereafter, attacked upon his father with knife albeit, he was saved unhurt. It has further been alleged that co-accused Kamla Devi and Sarita Devi opposite party Nos. 7000/- (a day’s sale amount) was snatched from his pocket and co-accused Algoo, thereafter, attacked upon his father with knife albeit, he was saved unhurt. It has further been alleged that co-accused Kamla Devi and Sarita Devi opposite party Nos. 4 and 7 with the connivance of rest of the accused persons destroyed the furniture and other domestic articles of the house causing huge monetary loss to the petitioner. It has also been alleged that opposite party No. 8, Algoo made an assault upon the petitioner causing head injury by the butt of the knife and snatched his golden chain. 4. In support of the complaint, the petitioner got himself examined under Section 200, Cr.P.C. on 24.1.2008 and thereafter, the statement of Indrajit (PW-1), Raj Kumar (PW-2), Jagdish Kumar Chaurasiya (PW-3), Sushila (PW-4), Ghanshyam (PW-5) and Dr. K.S. Rai (PW-6) was recorded under Section 202, Cr.P.C. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, learned ACJM vide his impugned order dated 10.4.2008 dismissed the complaint holding that the allegations made in complaint and in the statement of the witnesses are wholly improper and are not supported by the documentary evidence. Thus, the ground to summon the accused persons/ the opposite parties are not sufficient. 5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that learned ACJM has committed gross illegality in making detail assessment of the evidence and dismissing the complaint on the basis of non-production of the documentary evidence in support of the allegations made, as well as the improbability of the allegations contained therein. 6. It has also been contended that at the stage of Section 202, Cr.P.C. only prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons is to be seen and the evidence led by the complainant is not to be assessed with a view of possibility of the conviction of the accused likely to be summoned. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of his assertion relied upon the below noted cases : (1) Ghanshyam Singh v. State of U.P., 2008(60) ACC 780. (2) Nirmal Jit Singh Hoom v. State of West Bengal and another, 1973(10) ACC 181 (SC). (3) Smt. Nagwa v. Veeranna Shivalinguppa Konglgi and others, 1976 (13) ACC 225 (SC). 8. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of his assertion relied upon the below noted cases : (1) Ghanshyam Singh v. State of U.P., 2008(60) ACC 780. (2) Nirmal Jit Singh Hoom v. State of West Bengal and another, 1973(10) ACC 181 (SC). (3) Smt. Nagwa v. Veeranna Shivalinguppa Konglgi and others, 1976 (13) ACC 225 (SC). 8. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions and the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention as well as on the perusal of the material placed on record of the case, I am of the complete agreement with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that ACJM has committed gross manifest error of law and gross illegality in dismissing the complaint. 9. It is settled position that at the stage of passing order under Section 203 or 204, Cr.P.C. only prima facie offence is to be seen and not that the Court must arrive to the satisfaction that there exists a possibility of conviction of the accused persons so summoned. It has been held in the case of SW Panikkar v. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168 : “In case of complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine the complainant and his witnesses if any, to ascertain whether prima faice case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The word ‘sufficient ground’ used under Section 203, Cr.P.C. have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.” 10. It is true that often, complaints are filed under Section 200, Cr.P.C. with a motive or to cause unnecessary harassment, to wreck vengeance, to pressurise the opponent to bring them to their own terms etc. instead of preferring an alternative remedy by way of approaching civil Court. It is true that often, complaints are filed under Section 200, Cr.P.C. with a motive or to cause unnecessary harassment, to wreck vengeance, to pressurise the opponent to bring them to their own terms etc. instead of preferring an alternative remedy by way of approaching civil Court. Thus to meet out with these situation before issuing the process a Magistrate has to essentially keep in mind the scheme contained in the provision of Section 200 to 204, Cr.P.C. Therefore, a Magistrate should pass an order judicially and not mechanically or in routine manner. 11. In view of the legal position herein above and having regard to the facts stated above, it is clear that after the enquiry as contemplated under Section 200 and 203, Cr.P.C. if the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused, he may issue summon or warrants as the case may be and it is settled, that at this stage the Court is no required to appraise or evaluate the evidence as if it was finally deciding the case. 12. Thus, in my view, having considered to the facts stated and the legal position framed above, the Magistrate has committed a serious error in law. The petition is hereby allowed. The order dated 10.4.2008 passed by ACJM Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) and the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the revisional Court are hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to make a fresh look into the matter keeping in view of the observations made above and then pass order judiciously. ————