Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. - (1.) HEARD . Sri Vashudeo Mishra learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shiv Pramod Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. Present Criminal Misc. Case No. 2246/2007 under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing order dated 20.5.2006 and the summoning order dated 16.3.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate -I, Lucknow.
(2.) AS far factual matrix of the case, it is to be noted that Vijai Kumar Mishra was married with daughter of Narayan Dutta Awasthi namely Kusum Lata and due to some dispute applicant No. 1 filed suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Judge, Lucknow, on that very day. Narayan Dutta Awasthi lodged first information report under Section 312 /2005 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 ,506, I.P.C. and Section 3 /4, Dowry Prohibition Act. P.S. - -Mandion, District -Lucknow. After investigation, the Investigating Officer after recording statement of Smt. Kusum Lata and others submitted a final report. The informant Narayan Dutta Awasthi filed a protest petition alongwith an affidavit of Smt. Kusum Lata and on that application learned trial court vide order dated 20.5.2006 passed orders treating the protest petition as a complaint. After recording statement under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and the statement of witnesses under Section 202. Cr.P.C. the trial court passed summoning order under Section 204. Cr.P.C. summoning the applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 for facing trial under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and under Section 3 /4. Dowry Prohibition Act. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner by means of this application under Section 482, I.P.C. prayed to quash the order dated 20.5.2006 and summoning order dated 16.3.2007 Annexure -1 and Annexure -2 of the application respectively.
(3.) IT has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned trial court was wrong in treating the protest petition as a complaint case and also committed wrong in summoning the accused persons on the basis of evidence in the complaint case.;