- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 4.8.2012 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Ghazipur in Crl. Revision No. 315 of 2011 as also the summoning order dated 19.10.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Mohammadabad, Ghazipur in Complaint Case No. 196 of 2011, under sections 380, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The? main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional court has not entered into the merits of the summoning order by holding that the summoning order is in the nature of interlocutory order, therefore, no revision lies against it. No doubt the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pandey and others Vs Uttam and another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1028, has held that a summoning order is in the nature of an intermediate order, therefore, a revision lies against the same, but? this alone? cannot be a ground to set aside the summoning order passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate, court No.2, Mohammadabad, Ghazipur in Complaint Case No. 196 of 2011, which has also been challenged? in this petition.
(3.) THUS , in order to? test? the validity? of the summoning order, I have perused the complaint and the statement of the witnesses recorded in support thereof? which are on record. A perusal of the complaint and the statement of the witnesses recorded in support thereof do clearly make out a prima facie case of commission of an offence by the petitoners, who have been summoned by the court below. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to quash the summoning order.;