RAJ MANI CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
(2.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been moved by the accused applicants for quashing the order dated 15.06. 2009, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in complaint case No. 1639/XII/2008; Smt. Lalita Devi Vs. Ghasitey whereby, learned Magistrate has ordered to summon the accused applicants under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, 379 I.P.C. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the accused applicants is that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order dated 15.6.2009 has summoned the accused applicants for the offence under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, 379 I.P.C. Section 204 (2) Cr.P.C. provides that no summons or warrant against the accused shall be issued by the court unless the complainant files a list of the prosecution witnesses. In this case the complainant has not filed a list of the prosecution witnesses even then the learned Magistrate has summoned the accused applicants which is illegal. 5. From a perusal for the question and answer (Annexure No.6) filed by the accused applicants, it appears that no list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed by the complainant but non-filing of a list of the prosecution witnesses will not amount to illegality rather it will be irregularity. The accused applicants after putting their appearance before the trial court, may request the court to direct the complainant to file a list of prosecution witnesses. 6. The impugned order at this very ground does not call for interference. The application is, therefore, rejected. However, it is observed that the accused applicants after putting their appearance before the trial court may request the court to direct the complainant to file a list of prosecution witnesses.;