V.K.Chaturvedi, J. - (1.) Ashok Kumar has preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 25th February, 1989 passed by VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur summoning the revisionist as accused in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1989 under section 376, IPC.
(2.) Heard Sri Krishna Kapoor, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri D.S. Tiwari and Sri K.N. Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. Perused me material on record.
(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that if the Judicial Magistrate, before passing cognizance order, took the affidavit and statement of the complainant in support of protest petition then he should have taken cognizance under section 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and he should have followed the procedure of the complaint case, as such, the order is against the provisions of law. In support of his contention he has relied the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Pakhando and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2001 (43) ACC 1096 . The Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "Where cognizance has been taken under section 190 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code only on the basis of material collected during investigation and without taking into account any extraneous material, the Magistrate is not bound to follow the procedure laid down for complaint cases.";