- (1.) K. N. Ojha, J. Instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 23-11-2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, in Case No. 396/11 of 2001 (State v. Nathoo Lal) by which non-bailable warrant has been issued against the revisionists Amar Pal and Pappu, sons of Shyam Lal, Maya Devi widow of Shyam Lal, Kamla Devi wife of Veer Pal, Sobaran son of Rewati, Sukhpal Singh son of Sobran Singh, Munni Devi wife of Sukhpal Singh, and Satendra Singh son of Sobran Singh for being arrested and produced before the Court so that they may face trial in a case under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 120-B I. P. C.
(2.) HEARD Sri Anees Ahmad, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shekhar Yadav and Sri N. K. Dwivedi, learned AGA and have gone through the impugned order and the papers filed alongwith the revision. The complainant Natthu Lal moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. against the revisionists. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed for investigation in the case. Investigation was done and final report was submitted, on which notice was issued to the complainant. After hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and of witnesses Subedar and Purushottam under Section 202 Cr. P. C. , perused the case diary and took cognizance of the offence and issued non-bailable warrant against the revisionist. Aggrieved there from instant revision has been preferred. Section 204 of Cr. P. C. contemplates that if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be a warrant case, he may issue a warrant, or if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate of if he has no jurisdiction himself some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionists submits that in this case summons could be issued against the revisionists but non- bailable warrant was directly issued and thus the impugned orders is in violation of Section 204 (b) of Cr. P. C. Reliance has been also placed on Section 87 of Cr. P. C. , which contemplates that: "87. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons.-A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest - (a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or (b) if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure. " Thus, a perusal of Sections 87 and 204 Cr. P. C. shows that if in a case summons can be issued normally, it should be issued, but if Court sees reason to believe that issue of summons will ordinarily be not complied with or appearance of the accused before the Court will be avoided and there are reasons for this, warrant may be issued.;