M.K.Mittal - (1.) -This revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 1, Banda, in S.T. No. 130 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No. 115 of 2007 under Sections 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (10) of S.C./S.T. Act (State v. Dablu Singh), P. S. Kotwali Dehat, District Banda whereby he allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319, Cr. P.C. and directed to summon the accused.
(2.) HEARD Sri B. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist has filed certified copy of the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 Changu, keep it on record. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2 Changu filed a first information report alleging that on 3.5.2007 at about 10 a.m. when he was coming with his 'tanga' and when he reached in front of the shop of Binda Baniya the accused Rajendra Singh alias Lala (applicant) stopped his 'tanga' and abused him and said that whenever he was called to do anything he avoided it. All the four pulled him down the 'tanga' with his gireban and gave him kicks and fist blows. He was also threatened. However, Shyam and Shivpal and others of the village came and saved him. He could not go to lodge the report same day as his house was surrounded by the accused persons. However, he could manage to go to the Police Station on 5.5.2007 and lodged the report at 9.15 a.m.
(3.) AFTER investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against Dablu Singh alias Bhakaki. The prosecution led evidence and examined the informant as P.W. 1 and after completion of his examination-in-chief prosecution filed the application under Section 319, Cr. P.C. and the learned Judge holding that there were allegations against the other accused also including the present revisionist and that prima facie case was there against them, directed to summon the accused as above. Feeling aggrieved, this revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that learned trial court has erred in summoning the accused without having cross-examination of the witness and thus he has not followed the law as laid down in the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007 (58) ACC 254 : 2007 (2) ACR 2268 (SC). He has also contended that the order passed by the learned Judge is based on surmises and conjectures and that the accused is a peace loving citizen and has no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated in this case.;