- (1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This Revision has been directed against the order dated 25-1-1993 passed by the Munsif-Magistrate, Aonla, district Bareilly, in connection with case No. 293/92. It appears that by that order the learned Magistrate issued summons against the revisionist, legality or propdsry of the said order has been challenged in this Revision.
(2.) NO counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that since the complainant did not produce a list of withesses at the time of filing the petition of complaint, the order is illegal. I do not agree with the view of the learned counsel. Section 204, Cr. P. C. speaks that no summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused until a list of the prosecution withesses has been filed. So it is not necessary that a list of such withesses should accompany the petition of com plaint and according to Section 204 (2) the said list can be filed at the time of issuing process and no process would be issued without it. The second contention of the learned counsel is that when the learned Magistrate observes that when no case under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Act is made out against the revisionist, summoning him under Section 498-A, I. P- C. is illegal. The petition of complaint is made Annexure II. In paragraphs 4 and 5 the allegations for demanding dowry and torture etc. were mentioned separately. Those two offences being distinct one; it cannot be argued that one dependant of the other or that if one of them fails, the other will go. I do not find any force in the contention and hence that can not be sustained. The learned counsel has further contended that the occurrence took place at District Moradabad but the instant case was filed in a court within the district of Bareilly and as such the learned Magistrate was out of juris diction in issuing the order of summons. From the petition of the plaint it appears that the allegation of torture, demand of dowry etc. continued for a period and it extended to the parents house of the complainant as well. So all the places where the offence was committed has got jurisdiction to try the case. Moreover, if there is any irregularity it can be cured under Section 462, Cr. P. C. It speaks that no order shall be set aside merely on the ground that it took place in a wrong Sessions Division unless it appears that such an order has in fact occasioned failure of justice. Nothing has been contended before me that there has been any failure of justice. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Court and also in view of Section 462, Cr. P. C. I find that the contention has got no merit.
(3.) LASTLY, learned counsel has stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the learned Magistrate issued a warrant of arrest against the revisionist even when summons of the case was not received. No counter affidavit has been filed challenging the said version. The learned Additional Government Advocate also could not enlighten anything about it. Considering these facts I find that it is not legal to issue a warrant of arrest against the revisionist, without ascertaining the fact of proper service of notice or summons against him. Considering the facts and circumstances I find that there is no merit in the contention of the learned Advocate and accordingly the revision is dismissed. Considering that a warrant of arrest has been issued against the revisionist without any notice/summons it should be struck down. Accordingly, the order dated 3-9-1993 issuing warrant of arrest against the revisionist is hereby set aside. The revisionist is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate in connection with this case and face trial. Revision dismissed. .;