R.K.Rastogi - (1.) -This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., for quashing the impugned complaint dated 24.8.2006 (Annexure-1) filed by the complainant opposite party No. 2 against the accused applicants and the summoning order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja District Bulandshahr on the above complaint which is pending in his Court as Criminal Case No. 1599 of 2006, Rahul Sharma v. Lalit Tiwari and others, under sections 323, 504, 506 and 392 I.P.C.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., are that on 30.6.2006 at about 4.15 p.m. the accused applicant No. 1 Lalit Kumar Tiwari, who is Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank Khurja Branch, Bulandshahr, lodged a report against the opposite party No. 2 Rahul Deo Sharma, his brother Kapil Deo Sharma and five unknown persons, on the basis of which case Crime No. 272 of 2006 was registered against them under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 393 and 342 I.P.C., P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr. THE police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet against Kapil Deo Sharma and Rahul Deo Sharma in that case on 13.7.2006 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392 I.P.C. The complainant opposite party No. 2 Rahul Sharma (accused in the above case) filed a complaint on 24.8.2006 in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja vide Complaint Case No. 1599 of 2006, against Lalit Kumar Tiwari, Senior Branch Manager (informant in the above case), N.C. Bansal, Bank Loan Officer in the same Branch and Anil Kumar with these allegations that the above named accused persons Lalit Kumar Tiwari and N. C. Bansal had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 50,000 to Anil Kumar after taking illegal gratification from him by preparing fictitious documents in respect of the shop of father of the complainant. On receipt of the above information, on 30.6.2006 at about 2 p.m. when the complainant alongwith Kapil Deo Chief Editor Investigation News Cell and Anuj Kumar, Journalist, went to the above branch of Punjab National Bank to inquire from Lalit Kumar Tiwari and N. C. Bansal about this transaction, both the above named accused persons started to misbehave with them ; and not only this, both these accused persons looted their Soni camera, Mobile phone, golden chain etc. Then the complainant went to the police station to lodge a report but the police did not lodge his report. Then he gave information about this incident to the D.I.G. on telephone and he also got the injuries medically examined in the District Hospital, Bulandshahr. He also moved an application before the S.S.P. Bulandshahr on 17.7.2006 and again sent an application on 19.6.2006 by registered post but no action was taken. Then he filed this complaint. The complainant examined himself before the Magistrate under Section 200, Cr. P.C. He also produced Kapil Deo and Yogendra Kumar Sharma as witnesses under Section 202, Cr. P.C. Learned Magistrate, after hearing the complainant, was of the view that the incident narrated in the complaint did not inspire any confidence and so he rejected the complaint under Section 203, Cr. P.C., vide order dated 12.3.07. Aggrieved with that order, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2007, Rahul Sharma v. State in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, which was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Bulandshahr. He after hearing the parties dismissed the revsion and confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved with that order the complainant Rahul Sharma filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20345 of 2007 in this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C., and this application was decided by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J., vide order dated 20.8.2007 at the admission stage. He was of the view that the Magistrate has passed the order in a routine manner without giving any reason. He, therefore, allowed the application and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate as well as by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and issued a direction to the Magistrate that he shall pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law. Thereafter the learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.1.2008 passed the impugned summoning order against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 392, I.P.C. Aggrieved with that order the accused applicants have filed this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A., for the State as well as Mr. P. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for complainant opposite party No. 2. It appears from perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate that he after describing the history of the case, referred to the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 20.8.07 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 20345/07 and then he has written the following sentence : "Manniya Uchch Nyayalay Allahabad Ke Aadesh Ke Anupalan Men Abhiyuktgan Ko Dhara 323, 504, 506 and 392, I.P.C. Ke Antargat Talab Kiye Jane Ka Paryapt Aadhar Hai." and then in the operative portion he passed an order summoning the accused persons.;