Rajeev Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. R.P. Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Has been filed for the following relief: "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13-07-2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1, in Criminal Revision No. 379 of 2015 Mahant Swami Avadhutanand Giri v. State of U.P. And others as well as Criminal Complaint dated 03-02-2014 giving rise to Complaint Case No. 78 of 2014 Ashok Dubey v. Avadhutanand Giri and others , U/s 323, 504, 506, 452, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C., P.S. Laxa, District Varanasi pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5 Varanasi and impugned summoning order dated 01-09-2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5 Varanasi, AND Pending disposal of the instant application it is expedient in the interest of justice that further proceedings of the case before the trial court directed to remain stayed, and the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass such other and each or further orders may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case otherwise,the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the summoning order dated 1st September, 2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Varanasi as well as the order dated 13th July, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 379 of 2015 Mahant Swami Avadhutanand Giri v. State of U.P. And others , whereby the aforesaid criminal revision filed by the present applicants challenging the summoning order dated 1st September, 2014 has been dismissed. He submits that the orders impugned in the present application are wholly arbitrary and therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Magistrate while passing the summoning order dated 1st September, 2014 has simply recorded a conclusion that on the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, prima facie an offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. appears to have been committed. The said conclusion recorded by the Magistrate is preceded by a discussion of the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the complainant and his witnesses as recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. He, therefore, submits that in absence of any finding recorded by the Magistrate, on the basis of the averments made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant and that of the witnesses, no prima facie satisfaction was recorded by the Courts below for summoning the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. As such, no enquiry was conducted by the Magistrate as required in law before summoning the applicants. The revisional court committed jurisdictional error in ignoring the same and in confirming the summoning order dated 1st September, 2014. .;