- (1.) SHRI Narayan Shukla, J.:- Heard Mr. D.K. Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the summoning order dated 07.09.1996 on the ground that the complainant submitted the list of witnesses total as 130, but produced only 16 witnesses for examination, whereas he is under obligation to produce all the witnesses as listed in the list provided by him. In support of his submission, he cited a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rosy and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. [2000(1) JIC 815(SC)], whereas, controversy has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the judgement rendered in case of Sivaji Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and others, reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 578. In the aforesaid judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the examination of all witnesses cited in the complaint or whose name was disclosed by the complainant in furtherance of the direction given by the Magistrate in terms of proviso in the section 202(2) is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance and issue of process against the persons named as accused in the complaint. This Court has also considered the same question in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1309 of 2011.
(3.) IN light of the aforesaid settled view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the proceeding of the court below does not suffer from error and, therefore, the impugned summoning order does not warrant interference by this Court and the petition is dismissed.;