R.P.Shukla - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 18-1-1983, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, in Criminal Revision no. 56 of 1982, thereby he set aside the order, dated 9-12-1981, passed by the Fourth Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, summoning the present opposite-parties to stand their trial under sections 147/323 IPC, in Criminal case no. 66 of 1981.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Ashok Kumar, the present applicant, lodged a first information report at Police-Station Rampur, district Jaunpur, against Madan Lal alias Pawaroo, Subhash Chandra, Gaya Prasad and the present opposite parties. After investigation, the police charge sheeted Subhash Chandra, Madan Lal alias Pawaroo and Gaya Prasad only and left out the opposite parties. The Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence on the basis of the charge-sheet on 6-1-1982 and summoned the charge-sheeted accused. On 9-9-1981, Ashok Kumar, the first informant, appeared before the Magistrate and moved an application along with the affidavits of himself, Om Prakash and Arjun Singh, alleging that they stated even before the Investigating Officer about the participation of the accused who have not been charge-sheeted by the police. They should, therefore, be summoned for trial. The application and the affidavits are in the nature of protest petition against the police not charge-sheeting the aforesaid accused. The Magistrate heard the parties and found that Ashok Kumar, Shyam Lal, Samunder, Madan Lal son of Inam, Bechan and Raj Marain witnesses did state under section 161, CrPC about the participation in the occurrence by the accused not charge-sheeted by the police and, therefore, he straightaway issued summons requiring them to appear before him on 3-1-1982. Aggrieved by this order of the Magistrate, the accused preferred revision under section 397, CrPC before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Magistrate and sent the case back to the Magistrate with the direction that he should record some evidence and then summon the accused under section 319, CrPC. Aggrieved by this order of the Sessions Judge, Ashok Kumar, has preferred this revision.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the order of the Magistrate, summoning the opposite parties, was legal, correct and proper and, therefore, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge wrongly set it aside and that section 319, CrPC applied to a person other than the accused in the case.;