Dinesh Gupta, J.;— This revision is preferred against the order dated 02.08.2005 passed by learned A.C.M.M.I, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Complaint Case No.14390 of 2005 (Smt. Pooja Mishra vs. Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh and others). Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint against the revisionist and three others with the allegations that co-accused no.2 and 3 arrayed in the complaint got a libellous publication engraved in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' in Kanpur South as well as in Kanpur Mahanagar edition and contents of both the editions are against the complainant and alleged that she is a pross and running prostitution in the city like Kanpur. After going through the news published in both the newspapers circulated in the whole city so many relatives, friends and neighbours started passing comments against the complainant and thus the life of the complainant became miserable, thrashed the career and ruined her character; that the comments as elaborated above have lowered down the status, dignity and prestige which vivid in her mind every now and then directly caused by the libellous contents published in both the newspapers for which accused no.2 and 3 are directly responsible. The complainant got a legal notice dated 05.03.2005 duly served on accused no.2 and 3, thereafter it was revealed that the accused no.2 of the case got published news items on the basis of F.I.R. dated 2.3.2005 vide Crime No.86 of 2005 by accused no.1 of P.S.Naubasta. The complainant with a view to have the allegations and detailed description of it, moved an application before the court of Ist A.C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar on 27.5.2005 and consequently the court asked the police station to submit report. The complainant with a view to have the allegations and detailed description of it, moved an application before the court of Ist A.C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar on 27.5.2005 and consequently the court asked the police station to submit report. In the report it was revealed that there is a case which has been registered against the lady complainant in Case Crime No.86 of 2005 u/s. 110 , P.S. Naubasta, Kanpur; that in the legal reply received by the complainant it was revealed that a F.I.R. has been lodged by S.I.Rajendra Prasad of P.S. Naubasta and accused 4 and 5 (revisionists) are real brothers and they both made tool to accused no.1 inducing and insisting him to register the case against the lady complainant to trap in any of the crime by way of illegal gratification, consequently it is mentioned in the news item that the lady applicant is blackmailing one Railway Engineer, who is impliedly accused no.4 of this case. The accused no.4 is the real husband of the complainant married to her on 07.06.2001 in one of the reputed temple of Kanpur Nagar and after a couple of months the accused no.4 and 5 started dealing her with cruelty. When the complainant reached at the conclusion that her life is in danger she left the house of her husband and started living at the given address and on the above allegations it was lastly prayed that the accused be summoned and punished under sections 500/501/502/498-A I.P.C. The statement of the complainant was recorded u/s.200 Cr.P.C. as well as statement of Jasbir Singh s/o Kishan Singh and Anil Gupta s/o Sajah Prakash Gupta were recorded u/s. 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the above complaint and the statements, A.C.M.M.Ist, Kanpur Nagar summoned accused nos.1, 2 and 3 u/ss. 500,501,502 I.P.C. And accused no.4 and 5 (the revisionists) u/s. 498-A, 500, 501 and 502 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the revisionists preferred this revision. We have heard learned counsel for the revisionists. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the learned magistrate has committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned order. All the allegations made by the complainant against the revisionists are false and frivolous and without going into truthfulness of the allegations, the court has passed this order in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the learned magistrate has committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned order. All the allegations made by the complainant against the revisionists are false and frivolous and without going into truthfulness of the allegations, the court has passed this order in a mechanical manner. It was the duty of the magistrate to satisfy himself before passing the summoning order that the contents of the complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant constitute a cognizable offence. Learned counsel has referred the impugned order and submits that this order had been passed without application of mind. It is not a speaking order. Even the contents of the complaint and the evidence recorded by the complainant are not discussed and the court has not recorded as to how a prima facie case is established against the revisionists specially u/s. 498-A I.P.C. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submitted that the complainant had filed this complaint with the allegation that she was married with revisionist no.1 and after sometime he denied this marriage and he got published news item in connivance with other co-accused and the learned magistrate after satisfying himself, has passed the impugned order. There is no illegality and error in the order. I am unable to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for opposite party no.2. In every complaint case it is the mandatory duty of the magistrate to satisfy himself that prima facie cognizable offence is made out on the basis of the facts mentioned in the complaint as well as by the evidence adduced by the complainant, which is lacking in the present case. It is also true that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without even mentioning the facts of the complaint as well as the evidence adduced by the complainant and the reason for arriving at such conclusion. Section 500 I.P.C. provides for punishing a person for defaming another. Section 500 I.P.C. Is quoted below:- "Punishment for defamation- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or both." Section 501 I.P.C. relates to printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory and Section 502 I.P.C. is regarding sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter. Section 500 I.P.C. Is quoted below:- "Punishment for defamation- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or both." Section 501 I.P.C. relates to printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory and Section 502 I.P.C. is regarding sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter. The allegation made by the complainant in her complaint is that there is some news item published in the newspapers, but she had not mentioned that it was got published by the accused persons. Even in her complaint and statement she has not stated that this news item was published by the revisionists. Even in the news item there is no such mention. It is not clear how the court prima facie satisfied itself that the offences u/ss.500, 501 and 502 I.P.C. are made out against the revisionists. Section 498-A I.P.C. deals with cruelty towards the wife by her husband or relative of her husband. Section 498-A I.P.C. is quoted below:- " 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation- For the purpose of this section,. "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to concerning her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." Even in the complaint it is not mentioned how this news item published in the newspaper has resulted in cruelty. In order to summon the accused persons under the above sections, it was necessary for the court to prima facie satisfy itself that ingredients of the above sections are made out by the complainant. In order to summon the accused persons under the above sections, it was necessary for the court to prima facie satisfy itself that ingredients of the above sections are made out by the complainant. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate is not a speaking order and has been passed in a mechanical manner and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 02.08.2005 passed by learned A.C.M.M.I, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Complaint Case No.14390 of 2005 (Smt. Pooja Mishra vs. Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh and others) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned magistrate to pass appropriate orders after considering the contents of the complaint as well as the evidence lead by the complainant. _____________