- (1.) This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against order of summoning dated 23.7.2013 issued in a complaint case bearing Crime Case No.2144 of 2012 under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi titled 'Om Shanker Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bajpai and others pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Hardoi.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Shri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate has very fairly drawn attention of the court towards judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled 'Urmila Devi Vs. Yudhvir Singh, 2014 1 CriCC 284', wherein it has been concluded that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is available to the aggrieved party for challenging order of the magistrate, directing issuance of summons.
(3.) I have considered the legal position as pointed out by learned counsel. In Urmila Devi's case , in paras 22 to 24 of the judgement, the following has been held :- "22. Having regard to the said categorical position stated by this Court in innumerable decisions resting with the decision in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande as well as the decision in K.K.Patel, it will be in order to state and declare the legal position as under : (i). The order issued by the Magistrate deciding to summon an accused in exercise of his power under Section 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. would be an order of intermediatory or quasifinal in nature and not interlocutory in nature. (ii). Since the said position viz., such an order is intermediatory order or quasi-final order, the revisionary jurisdiction provided under Section 397, either with the District Court or with the High Court can be worked out by the aggrieved party. (iii). Such an order of a Magistrate deciding to issue process or summons to an accused in exercise of his power under Section 200 to 204 Cr.P.C., can always be subject matter of challenge under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 23. When we declare the above legal position without any ambiguity, we also wish to draw support to our above conclusion by referring to some of the subsequent decisions. In a recent decision of this Court in Om Kumar Dhankar Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2012 11 SCC 252, the decisions in Madhu Limaye , V.C. Shukla , K.M.Madhew , Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and others, 2006 1 ApexCJ 325 ending with Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pandey , was considered and by making specific reference to paragraph 6 of the judgement in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram, this Court has held as under in paragraph 10 : "10. In view of the above legal position, we hold, as it must be, that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., was available to the Respondent No.2 in challenging the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of summons. The first question is answered against the appellant accordingly." 24. Therefore, the position has now come to rest to the effect that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is available to the aggrieved party in challenging the order of the Magistrate, directing issuance of summons." ;