- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Counsel for the private respondents and the learned A.G.A. for the State. By means of instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have challenged the summoning order dated 1.8.2011 whereby the applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offences under sections 147, 323, 504 I.P.C. Police Dhanghata district Sant Kabir Nagar.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that in this case, private respondent/opposite party No. 3 preferred an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants wherein an order for registering and investigating the case, was passed. Pursuant to above order, a first information report was lodged on 10.11.2003. In this case, cross first information reports were lodged at crime Nos. 344 of 2003 and 344-A of 2003. In the case pertaining to case crime No. 344 of 2003 the matter was investigated into and a charge-sheet was filed against private respondent No. 2 and others. However, in cross-case i.e. case crime No. 344-A of 2003, a Final Report was submitted after investigation. Consequently, notice was issued to respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 moved a protest petition on 4.2.2006 before the learned Lower Court. The Lower Court allowed the protest petition and treated the same as a complaint case whereafter, the Court concerned proceeded with the case and recorded the statement of the complainant and witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and on the consideration of the matter, summoned the applicants to face the trial vide impugned order dated 1.8.2011 passed in complaint case No. 1002 of 2011, Om Prakash v. Amar Singh and others, under sections 147, 323, 504 Police Station Ghanghata district Sant Ravidas Nagar.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the incident in question took place in the year 2003 whereas the summoning order was issued on 1.8.2011. The maximum sentence provided under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. is confined to only three years' period of imprisonment and fine. In that view of the matter, the cognizance was barred under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate while passing the summoning order failed to take notice of the above provisions and erroneously issued summons against the applicants in utter disregard to the manifest provisions of Cr.P.C. consequently, the entire proceedings are vitiated.;