Prima facie scrutiny at summoning stage bars reappraisal of evidence and repeated discharge challenges without changed circumstances.

At the cognizance and summoning stage, only a prima facie case is required, and the truthfulness or sufficiency of evidence cannot be tested as at trial. A discharge application cannot be used to reopen the summoning order unless a changed circumstance is shown; the court's review remains confined to the complaint, witness statements, and documentary material, and proceedings may continue on strong suspicion. Revisional interference is unwarranted where no procedural illegality or manifest perversity is demonstrated, so the rejection of discharge required no interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court should interfere with the order rejecting the discharge application in a complaint case, where no change in circumstances was shown after the summoning order and the application sought reconsideration of the same material.

Analysis: At the stage of cognizance and summoning, only a prima facie case is required to be seen, and the truthfulness or sufficiency of the evidence cannot be tested as if at trial. A discharge application cannot be used to reopen the summoning order in the absence of any new circumstance. The scope of the trial court's consideration at the relevant stage is confined to the allegations in the complaint, the statements of witnesses, and the documentary material, and charges may proceed even on strong suspicion. Revisional interference is not warranted where no procedural illegality or manifest perversity is shown.

Conclusion: The rejection of the discharge application called for no interference, and the revision was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Evidence cannot be appreciated or reweighed at the summoning or charge stage, and discharge is not justified merely to revisit an earlier summoning order in the absence of changed circumstances.

---