HASIMA KHATOON Vs. MURTAZA ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioners and the State.

(2.) IN this case, by an order, dated 11.12.2006 notices were directed to be issued to Opposite Party No. 1. From the service report, it is apparent that such notice was personally served on the Opposite Party No. 1 on 4.2.2007 but despite service of such notice, no one has appeared on his behalf. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order, dated 1.3.2006 passed in complaint case no. 1859 of 2001. whereby and whereunder the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the complainant -opposite party no. 1 has been allowed and the four petitioners have been summoned to face trial.

(3.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application is that on 3.11.2001 a complaint case filed against eight persons including the four petitioners but after holding enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate had issued notice and summons only against four of them and no order was passed in respect of these four petitioners meaning thereby the Court did not find any material for summoning them. Subsequently, while the matter was pending for trial and no witnesses were examined in such trial, an application at the behest of the complainant -Opposite Party came to be filed on 24.10.2005 praying therein that since the complaint was filed by him against eight persons but the Court below while taking cognizance had issued summons only against four persons and not against these four petitioners, they should be also summoned under the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the fact that in course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the statement of the witnesses, the complicity of these four petitioners (accused persons) were also borne out.