- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The learned Magistrate on 24.2.2007, after rejecting the final report treated the protest as a complaint and summoned O.Ps no.2 and 3 and one Devendra under sections 452,352,504 and 506 IPC. The O.Ps no. 2 and 3 challenged the order dated 24.2.2007 in Criminal Revision No.83 of 2007 unsuccessfully on 16.2.2008. A Writ Petition No.6018 of 2008 was preferred challenging the order dated 16.2.2008 and pursuant thereto the case was treated as a complaint case and the learned Magistrate on 23.10.2008 summoned O.Ps no. 2 and 3 and one Aditya Jain under Sections 352,504 and 506 IPC. The applicant, an informant being aggrieved against non-summoning of the accused persons under Section 307 IPC challenged the order dated 23.10.2008 in Criminal Revision No.145 of 2008 before the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur which came to be allowed on 2.2.2009, setting aside the order dated 23.10.2008 and directing the learned Magistrate to pass fresh orders. Pursuant thereto the learned Magistrate passed fresh orders on 24.2.2009 summoning O.Ps no. 2 and 3 and one Devendra under Sections 352, 504,506 and 307 IPC. The O.Ps no. 2 and 3 being aggrieved against the order dated 24.2.2009 preferred an Application U/s 482 No.18882 of 2009 which came to be disposed of on 20.2.2014 with the following observations:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This is an application filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 24.2.2009 and revisional order dated 2.2.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur, and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur respectively in Case No. 4591 of 2008, under Section 352, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that on the basis of false and concocted story initially F.I.R. was lodged, in which final report was submitted. Subsequently, against the final report, the opposite party no.2 filed protest petition along with affidavit of alleged witnesses. Thereafter, recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate summoned the applicants under Sections 352, 504, 506 I.P.C. against which a revision was filed and the Revisional court directed the learned Magistrate to pass fresh summoning order. Thereafter, the applicants were summoned under Sections 352, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., as such the summoning order 24.2.2009 as well as revisional court's order dated 2.2.2009 are illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Learned opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer of the applicants and contended that the statements of Ramesh Chand Mittal and his son Aashish were recorded under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. which has been filed along with counter affidavit at page 19. As per perusal of the statement it is clear that there was firing by the applicant no.2 with country made pistol, though no injury was caused, hence the applicants were rightly summoned under Section 307 I.P.C. also. Considered the submission. From perusal of the statements recorded under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. the fact of the case is that there was civil proceeding pending in the parties where they were directed to maintain status quo. However, the applicants started collecting the construction material at the land in dispute and when objection was raised the applicants abused and specially applicant no.2 fired with country made pistol, though no injury was caused. As per statement this is specific allegation against the applicant no.2 of firing with country made pistol. Though, applicants were not summoned initially under Section 307 I.P.C. however, after the matter was remanded by the lower revisional court, the applicants were summoned under Section 307 I.P.C. also. From perusal of the lower revisional court order, it is clear that there was no direction to summon under Section 307, rather direction was to pass summoning order in accordance with law. Hence view of the statement u/s 200/202 Cr.P.C. since the allegation of firing, it cannot be said that there was no intention to commit the murder. However this aspect is required to be considered afresh whether other applicants can be summoned under Section 307 independently or only application no.2 Aaditya Jain was to be summoned under Section 307. The defence version as well as complainant version would be examined at appropriate stage by the court concerned in accordance with law. However, without expressing any opinion on merit, in view of the facts, if the applicants appear before the court concerned within 30 days and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off, expeditiously if possible on the same day, in accordance with law, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 56 AllLR 390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 4 SCC 437, after giving opportunity to public prosecutor. If the bail application could not be decided on the same day then applicants may be released on interim bail till disposal of the bail application. With these observations, present application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed off."
(3.) The O.P's no. 2 and 3 filed an application dated 15.3.2014 which was objected by the applicant on the ground that neither the O.P's 2/3 have complied the order of this Court dated 20.2.2014 by surrendering themselves and on the contrary filed an application dated 15.3.2014 to review its order of summoning dated 24.2.2009 in terms of order of this Court dated 20.2.2014.;