- (1.) SAROJ Bala, J. By means of this application under 482 Cr. P. C. the applicants seek the quashing of orders dated 8-8- 2002 and 18-10-2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-Court No. 1, Mainpuri and order dated 26-3- 2003 passed by the Sessions judge, Mainpuri in Criminal Case No. 3659 of 2002, Gopi Singh v. Suraj Singh and Ors. , under Sections 307, 323 and 506 I. P. C, Police station Allau, District Mainpuri and Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2002.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to these proceedings are : An application under 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code ). was moved by the Opposite Party. In compliance of the order for registration and investigation the First Information Report was registered under Sections 307, 323 and 506 of the India Penal Code. After investigation, final report was submitted. THE opposite party filed protest petition against the final report which was treated as complaint and four witnesses were examined. Rejecting the final, report the order dated 8-8- 2002 was passed summoning the applicants for the offences under Sections 307, 323 and 506 I. P. C. THE summoning order was challenged in a Criminal revision No. 336 of 2002. THE Criminal revision was dismissed on 26-3- 2003. The impugned orders have been challenged on the grounds that the Judicial Magistrate adopted the procedure of complaint case as well as police case. After recording the statements of complainant and witnesses, the Magistrate perused the injury report and final report. The Sessions Judge without application of mind had dismissed the revision against the summoning order. The First Information Report was lodged for manufacturing a false case against the applicants. The procedure of complaint case as well as police case cannot be adopted simultaneously. The injured was medically examined seven days after the incident but the statement of doctor was not recorded by the Magistrate. Heard Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for the complainant, learned A. G. A. and have perused the record.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the protest petition having been treated as complaint the Magistrate committed illegality in going through the final report, injury reports and case diary. The learned A. G. A. and 'the' learned Counsel having proceeded to act under Section 190 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure and recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C, the impugned order is not vitiated. If was argued that while taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code there is no bar to look into the case diary and other documents available therein.;