VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. - (1.) BY means of this revision preferred under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the 'Cr.P.C'), order dated 4.12.2003, passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1 Gorakhpur, in the criminal case arising out of Crime No. 333 of 2002 (State v. Ramesh and others), un­der sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 452 IPC, P.S. Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur and the order dated 17.5.2004, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 13, Gorakhpur in the said case have been chal­lenged.
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 4.12.2003, the revisionists (hereinafter to be referred as 'the accused') were summoned to face the trial under sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 452 IPC after rejecting the final report submitted by the police of P.S. Sahjanwa district Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 333 of 2002 and by the impugned order dated 17.5.2004, application dated 6.12.2003 moved by the revisionists to recall that summoning order has been rejected. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts emerging from the record leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that the complainant Shri Narayan s/o Ram Dev resident of village Gopapur, P.S. Sah­janwa, District Gorakhpur (opposite party No. 2 herein) lodged an FIR on 17.7.2002 at P.S. Sahjanwa, where a case under sections 323, 325, 504, 452, 506 IPC was registered at Crime No. 333 of 2002 against (1) Rarnesh s/o Kailash (2) Ramchandra and (3) Jag-dish both sons of Santosh Kumar (revisionists herein). After investigation, final report was submitted by the police, against which the complainant filed protest petition. The accused also filed objections against that protest petition. After hearing the Counsel of the parties, the learned Ju­dicial Magistrate-1 Gorakhpur vide impugned order dated 4.12.2003 summoned the accused for trial after rejecting the final report. Thereafter, the accused moved an application on 6.12.2003 to recall the said summoning order. That application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 17.5.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 13, Gorakhpur. Hence this revision.
(3.) WHEN the case was taken up in the revised list, the Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 did not appear. Hence I have heard arguments of Sri. Manoj Kumar Ad­vocate, holding brief of Sri B.K. Tripathi learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.;