JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.—This criminal revision has been filed by Ram Ujagir Maurya and nine other persons against the order dated 7.12.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhadohi in Complaint Case No. 2109 of 2005 Mata Gulam v. Ram Ujagir and others, by which the learned magistrate has summoned the revisionists for facing trial under Section 147, 149, 465 IPC. 2. A perusal of the record reveals that a complaint was filed by Mata Gulam Debey s/o Babban Dubey, Sakin Harinarayanpur, P.S Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, against Ram Ujagir Maurya, Rarm Jeet Maurya sons of Bhaggar Maurya, Bhaggar Maruya, Ram Surat Maurya sons of Ram Kishore Maurya, Raja Ram Maurya s/o Ram Nihor Maurya, Ram Sringar Maurya, Ram Sanehi Maurya sons of Baran Maurya and Vijay Nath Maurya, all resident of village Harinarayanpur, P.S. Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi, Ramesh Maurya s/o Jivdhan, r/o village Dhamahapur, P.S. Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar and Callector Chaubey s/o Ram Achhaibar Chaubey r/o village Arjun Patti, P.S. Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, alleging that the complaint’s chak No. 159 is near the sahan of Ram Ujagir in which complainant has grown the chari. Ram Ujagir wanted to purchase the land and was pressurizing to sell the land to him. When he refused, his cattles always grazed the chari shown by him. On 27.7.2005 at about 8.00 a.m. they were forcibly reaping the chari. When complainant’s wife refrained them, they became aggressive. In this respect an application was given to S.P. Bhadohi by complainant’s wife. When complainant had gone to S.P. Bhadohi on 4.8.2005, with regard to that application, then all the accused persons came there alongwith Station House Officer Aurai and forcibly took him to P.S. Aurai where he was locked up. Again when his wife moved an application to the higher authorities, then he was released by the police Aurai on 10.8.2005 at about 10.00 a.m., at that time all the accused persons were present in Police Station Aurai. When he was exiting through the western gate, all the accused persons caught hold him and took him inside the police station at the temple adjacent to western gate of police station and said that your relative has taken money and still you are not executing the sale-deed of land, then we will not let you go. When he was exiting through the western gate, all the accused persons caught hold him and took him inside the police station at the temple adjacent to western gate of police station and said that your relative has taken money and still you are not executing the sale-deed of land, then we will not let you go. After that, all the accused persons abused him and forcibly made him sign a plain stamp paper on which a revenue stamp was affixed, by threatening him. He apprehended that by the use of this forged document, they will grab the property of the complainant and will reap the chari. They also threatened that if you will take any action, then they will kill him. This incident was witnessed by Radheshyam Dubey s/o Ram Kailash, Shashi Kant Dubey s/o Sadanand and Smt. Shail Kumari, wife of Complainant. He at once informed the police of Aurai police station. Accused persons were called by the Inspector, but no action was taken against them. The complainant sent the information to S.P. Bhadohi through registered post, but no action was taken. After filing of this complaint Mata Gulam Dubey was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Shail Kumari, wife of Mata Gulam Dubey and Shashi Kant Dubey were examined as witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. After hearing and going through the record, learned Court below has passed the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved this criminal revision has been preferred. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and also learned AGA for the State. No one is present on behalf of respondent No. 2 despite service of summon. It was argued from the side of learned counsel for the revisionists that 10 persons have been summoned as accused. All have been summoned due to village partibandi and enmity. No such incident has occurred. A civil suit is pending between the parties and in order to pressurize this false complaint has been lodged. 4. Learned AGA has argued that while considering the evidence as to whether there was prima facie case which is sufficient to proceed against the accused persons, the quality of evidence is different from the quality of evidence required for conviction of the accused persons. 5. 4. Learned AGA has argued that while considering the evidence as to whether there was prima facie case which is sufficient to proceed against the accused persons, the quality of evidence is different from the quality of evidence required for conviction of the accused persons. 5. It has been held in several decisions of Apex Court that at the stage of issue of process it is not to duty of the Court to find out as to whether the accused would be ultimately convicted or acquitted. The object of the Section 204 Cr.P.C. is to consider whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons. 6. The expression “ in the opinion of a magistrate” means that the magistrate has to merely form an opinion as to the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding against the accused persons. It does not require him to record any reasons for his so doing. 7. At the stage of summoning, the magistrate is not required to meticulously examine and evaluate the evidence. He is not required to record detailed reasons. A brief order which indicates the application of mind is all that is expected of him at the stage. From the above discussion it is clear that the magistrate has only to see the prima facie case. In the instant case, complainant and all the eyewitnesses mentioned in the complaint have been examined under Section 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. After perusal of the evidence given by these witnesses the magistrate has rightly held that there is prima facie case for proceedings against the accused persons. From the above discussions it is clear that the revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is hereby dismissed. ——————