JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.K. Roopanwal, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 4, Hamirpur, in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1999, Khalida v. Naseem and another whereby the order dated 15.10.1998 passed by the C.J.M. Hamirpur, in Case No. 151 of 1989, Khalida v. Naseem and another, was set aside. 2. It appears from the record that O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint against the revisionist alleging therein that he by practicing fraud upon her solemnized the marriage. At the time of the marriage with her, he was already married and was having Smt. Shaila Rani as his wife. In support of the allegations of the complaint she examined herself and her father. On their statements the revisionist was summoned. The case went up to the stage of Section 244, Cr. P.C. At that stage also she examined herself and her father. At this stage the trial Court found that no case under Sections 495, 420, 498A, I.P.C. is made out as there is no evidence to constitute these offences against the revisionist. The trial Court discharged the revisionist vide order dated 15.10.1998. Against this discharge a revision was filed by O.P. No. 2 before the Sessions Judge concerned, who reversed the order of the Magistrate vide his order dated 11.10.2006 and that is the order under challenge here. 3. I have heard Mr. P.K. Yadav, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State, Mr. D.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2 and perused the record. 4. Mr. Yadav argued that the Sessions Judge was not right in opining that no case for discharge was made out as there was sufficient evidence to summon the revisionist. 5. Mr. Parmar argued that the Magistrate had no power to discharge the revisionist when there was sufficient evidence on the record to summon him under Section 204, Cr.P.C. 6. For deciding the rival contentions it would be necessary to see as to what evidence would be necessary to consider for framing the charge in a warrant trial instituted on a complaint. In this regard a reference to Section 246, Cr.P.C. would be relevant. For deciding the rival contentions it would be necessary to see as to what evidence would be necessary to consider for framing the charge in a warrant trial instituted on a complaint. In this regard a reference to Section 246, Cr.P.C. would be relevant. It says that if, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. 7. The words “when such evidence has been taken” refer to that evidence, which is required to be taken under Section 244, Cr.P.C. These words do not include that evidence, which was taken for the purpose of summoning under Section 204, Cr.P.C. Therefore, this opinion of the Sessions Judge is not correct that there was no case for the discharge as the summoning order had already been passed on the basis of the evidence tendered by the complainant under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. If this opinion of the Sessions Judge is approved then definitely the provision of Section 244, Cr.P.C. would be a waste provision. Sections 244 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated for the purpose of testing the evidence of the complainant on cross-examination. If evidence recorded under Section 244, Cr.P.C. makes out a prima facie case to proceed further, the charge shall be framed, otherwise it would be a case for discharge under Section 245, Cr.P.C. 8. In the light of the above legal provisions, if we go through the evidence, we would find that the evidence tendered by O.P. No. 2 under Section 244, Cr.P.C. if remained unrebutted was not sufficient to warrant conviction of the revisionist. O.P. No. 2, at the stage of Section 244, Cr.P.C. examined herself and her father. She also produced certain letters. The letters did not disclose the factum of marriage between the revisionist and Shaila Rani. The oral evidence was not at all acceptable as neither the complainant nor her father had themselves seen the marriage between the revisionist and Shaila Rani. She also produced certain letters. The letters did not disclose the factum of marriage between the revisionist and Shaila Rani. The oral evidence was not at all acceptable as neither the complainant nor her father had themselves seen the marriage between the revisionist and Shaila Rani. Therefore, in the presence of such evidence the Magistrate was perfectly justified in opining that the marriage between the revisionist and Shaila Rani could not be proved by O.P. No. 2 and therefore, the offence under Section 495, I.P.C. was not made out if the evidence under Section 244, Cr.P.C. remained unrebutted. The Magistrate was also right in opining that no case under Section 498A, I.P.C. is also made out as no evidence regarding cruelty was available on the record and whatever in this regard was said by the lady was said only in a general manner. The evidence could not show that by suppressing any fact the revisionist had contracted marriage with O.P. No. 2 and thus the offence of cheating could not be made out and so it was rightly opined by the Magistrate. 9. Thus in view of the above, I find that the Sessions Judge reversed the order of the Magistrate on wrong assumption and the order of the Sessions Judge does not deserve affirmation by this Court. The order of the Magistrate was well in order and should be allowed to maintain. 10. Accordingly, the revision is allowed, the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the order passed by the C.J.M. on 15.10.1998 is allowed to stand. ————