- (1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE revisionists challenge the order dated 29-5-1997 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. THE Court below on a criminal complaint filed against the revisionist had taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. THE complaint discloses certain facts regarding cheating and criminal breach of trust committed by the accused persons against the complainant. THE learned Magistrate, after recording the evidence advanced from the side of the complainant under Sections 200/202 of Cr. P. C. (for short the 'code'), had passed the order summoning the revisionist- accused in the case and that order had been challenged by filing certain objections stating that as the complaint was not maintainable and the Court should not have issued proceed of summons etc. against the accused persons. In these objections more than one grounds were taken for non-maintainability of the compliant. THE Court below, while considering the merits of the complaint as well as the objections, found that the contentions of the accused, as made in the objections, had absolutely no force and by the impugned order the learned Magistrate had dismissed it. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, this revision has been preferred by the accused persons. Learned Sr. Advocate, Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, submits that the complaint did not in fact, disclose the commission of offences for which the accused had been summoned and as such, there being no strength in the complaint, the Court below should have dismissed it by recalling or ignoring the order whereby it had summoned the revisionists accused in the trial.
(3.) IN reply to the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel, it has been submitted from the side of the opposite party that the objections, which were made on behalf of the accused persons, were not worth hearing at that particular stage of the case and if at all there was any occasion for letting of the accused on account of even non-maintainability of the complaint, it was available only at the stage of Section 245 of the Code and not before that. The learned Counsel has also emphasised that the lis between the parties, even if, it is of the civil nature and some offence is also found to have been committed in the facts of the case by either of the parties, a criminal action cannot be said to be barred at the instance of the aggrieved party. In order to fortify his contentions, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the case law of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Ors. , 2005 (1) JIC 164 (SC) : JT 2004 (7) SC 243 ; Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pandey & Ors. v. Uttam & Anr. , 1993 (3) SCC 134 ; K. K. Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. , 2000 (2) JIC 714 (SC) : JT 2000 (6) SCC 195 ; V. C. Shukla v. State through C. B. I. {1980 (2) SCR 380} Parmatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 (SC) 876, Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. , 2005 (1) JIC 122 (SC) : JT 2004 (8) SC 220 and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 (1) SCR 749.;