- (1.) CASE called out in the revised list. None is present for the revisionist as well as for the Opp. Party No. 2. Learned A.G.A. is present for the State.
(2.) HEARD learned A.G.A. for the State? and perused? the record with the assistance of the learned A.G.A. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionists for quashing the impugned order dated 9.7.2004, 13.7.2004 and 18.3.2005? passed by the Judicial Magistrate Firozabad in Complaint Case No. 804 of 2004 (Shiv? Shanker? Vs. Hari Mohan and others)? under Sections 500,468,469,471 and 294 I.P.C. A complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Opp. Party No. 2 Shiv Shanker on 29.3.2004 against the revisionist for? offence under Sections 500,468,469,471 and 294 I.P.C. in District Firozabad. The statements of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively by the learned Magistrate. After examining the complainant,? his witnesses? and the material available on record, the learned Magistrate? found a prima-facie case against the accused-respondent and? took cognizance of the offence and summoned the revisionist? for the offences for trial vide order dated 9.4.2004. The revisionists did not appear before the trial court? in pursuance of the summoning order dated 9.4.2004 then the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants against them vide order dated 13.7.2004. It appears from the order-sheet? of the case that on 28.7.2004 revisionists Ram Niwas and Rahul Gupta appeared before the Court and they were released on bail by the? Trial Court. It further? transpires? from the order-sheet that on 18.3.2005 , the revisionists Ram Niwas, Rahul? and co-accused Tara Chandra moved an exemption application before the learned Magistrate which was allowed by the trial court and the next? date was fixed for evidence. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the revisionists were summoned by the learned Magistrate by? order dated 9.4.2004? and the revision against the summoning order had become time barred on 5.5.2005 when the same has been filed before this Court. Further the impugned order dated 13.7.2004, which is under? challenge by the revisionists in the instant revision? by which non-bailable? warrants? were issued against? the revisionists was also not maintainable? being? inter locutory order. Also? the impugned order dated 18.3.2005, of which? quashing is sought,? the learned Magistrate has exempted the personal appearance of the revisionists Ram Vilas, Rahul and co-accused Tara Chandra and fixed the next date for evidence. The said? order too was not prejudicial? to the revisionists? and the same is also an inter locutory order. The revisionists, in order to bring the present revision within limitation? had challenged? the impugned order dated 18.3.2005 before this Court by means of the present? revision alongwith the impugned orders dated 9.4.2004 and 13.7.2004 respectively which were time barred. This practice by the revisionists is highly? deprecated. However, from the perusal of the impugned order dated 9.4.2004 by which the revisionists? have been summoned for the offence under Sections 500,468,469,471 and 294 I.P.C. for trial does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or infirmity.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid discussions,? in my opinion, the present revision lacks merit? and is accordingly dismissed. INterim order, if any, stands discharged. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order within a week? by fax as well as by normal mode? to the trial court concerned to proceed with the trial.;