J.J. Munir,J. - (1.) This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been brought with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 24.04.2004 passed by the A.C.J.M.-VII, Bareilly in Complaint Case no.2527 of 2003, Virendra Raizada vs. Mukul Mohan Tripathi, under Section 500 IPC, P.S., Subhas Nagar, District Bareilly, and, further, to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
(2.) Heard Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. Arun Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. along with Sri Mayank Awasthi appearing for the State.
(3.) This case is a tale of two teachers. It is about their journey from the class room to the court room. It appears that the complainant/ opposite party is a Lecturer employed with a certain Guru Nanak Khalsa Inter College, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly, whereas the applicant is a Teacher in the same college. The complainant/ opposite party laid a complaint before the Magistrate, alleging facts on the basis of which he prayed that the applicant be summoned and punished for an offence under Section 500 IPC. The short course of proceedings before the Magistrate leading to the summoning order were not very eventful. The complaint aforesaid was filed by opposite party no.2 on 08.12.2003. It appears that statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and those of the witnesses, PW-1, Sanjay Saxena and another, Ramesh, PW-2, who supported the complaint, were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 24.04.2004 passed in Complaint Case no.2527 of 2003, proceeded to summon the applicant to stand his trial for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. The aforesaid order, is hereinafter referred to, as the impugned order. None of the parties have annexed the statements of witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., which ought to have been done, looking to the nature of the prayer, at least by the applicant. However, since the challenge goes far deeper and questions the maintainability of the complaint on the allegations carried, de hors the evidence led in support, the absence of the statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., is hardly of any consequence.;