KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,J. - (1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.16 of 2012 (Shankar Lal Tiwari v. Rajesh alias Raju and others) , arising out of Case Crime No.1120 of 2011, under Section 498A and 304B I.P.C. r/w 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bargarh, District-Chitrakoot, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot including the cognizance/summoning order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot.
(2.) Heard Shri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A.
(3.) The hub of the submissions that have been placed by the counsel challenging the impugned order whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the final report and proceeded to summon the accused to face the trial, is that while considering the final report the Magistrate also looked into the affidavits and material that was placed before him on behalf of the first informant and once the Magistrate looks into it and goes through them then the cognizance should be deemed to have been based on the material extraneous to the case diary, and therefore, the cognizance could not have been taken under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., instead it should have been taken cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. and the court should have proceeded in the matter following the procedure of complaint case and also should have recorded the statements under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. before summoning the applicants to face trial.;