Raj Mani Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record.
(2.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 05.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi in Complaint Case No. 42 of 2010 (Sukh Lal v. Mishri and Ors.), under Sections 380, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the complainant Sukh Lal in his application under Section 156(3) of the Code has assigned the role of snatching Kundal to accused Mishri while he in his statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code has assigned role of snatching Kundal to accused Nirmala and wife of complainant did not assign any role of snatching Kundal to anyone. In this way, no offence under Section 380 I.P.C. is made out against the accused. On the basis of allegation made in the complaint as well as statements of witnesses, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from non application of mind which is liable to be quashed.
(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. opposed the petition.;