MANOJ MISRA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) BY this revision application, the revisionists have challenged the summoning order dated 23.5.2012 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. , Bareilly in Case No. 594 of 2011 whereby the revisionists have been summoned under Sections 376 read with 109 I.P.C. and Section 506 I.P.C. 3. The facts, as they could be elicited from the record, are that the opposite party no.2, the father of the victim, lodged a first information report against five persons namely, one Pappu and the four revisionists herein. This report was registered as Case Crime No.376 of 2011 at P.S. Meerganj, Bareilly. Upon investigation the police laid charge sheet only against Pappu. It appears that cognizance was taken on the charge sheet. As no charge sheet was laid against the remaining four accused, the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in respect of the same offence impleading the remaining accused persons. Thereafter, statement of victim Babita and other witnesses were recorded, which supported the complaint allegations and, prima facie, disclosed commission of offences by the revisionists, accordingly, the revisionists were summoned under section 376 read with section 109 IPC and section 506 IPC.
(3.) CHALLENGING the summoning order, the learned counsel for the revisionists, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jile Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 383, contended that the Magistrate had no power to summon the revisionists on a private complaint once in respect of the same offence cognizance was taken on a police report which related to only one accused and that the only course left for the complainant was to await for the commencement of trial and to take recourse to the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., after leading of evidence.;