Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.
(2.) THE present 482, Cr.P.C. application has been filed against the summoning order dated 26.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, District Muzaffar Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 1415 of 2008 State Vs. Ajendra and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 421 of 2006, under Sections 323, 394, 302, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Kandhala, District Muzaffar Nagar, whereby the applicant has been summoned on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R., lodged in the present case. It is further contended that an application was allegedly moved by the first informant before Superintendent of Police regarding complicity of the applicant in commission of the alleged offence. It is thus argued that the summoning order is bad in law.
(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. has contended that the facts which were to be recorded in the F.I.R., was not recorded inspite of the fact that he has clearly mentioned about the complicity of the applicant in commission of the alleged offence. It is thus argued that incorrect first information report has lodged. Learned A.G.A. further contends that P.W.1, first informant has categorically stated in the statement before the court below that the applicant was also involved in the commission of the offence. It is thus, argued that the summoning order does not suffer from any infirmity in law.;