ARVIND K.TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the further proceeding of complaint case no.3101/07 pending in the court of M.M.III, Court No.3, Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. Ram Sanehi and others.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the complaint was lodged in which the applicant no.1and 2 were summoned by impugned order dated 8.7.08 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 435 I.P.C. Nerval Kanpur. Thereafter the revision was preferred and without hearing the applicants the revisional court allowed the revision by impugned order dated 25.2.09 on the ground that the allegation was against all the accused persons. However, on the basis of same evidence only two persons i.e. applicant no.1 and 2 were summoned. The order dated 8.7.08 was challenged and the matter was remanded without hearing of the applicants. Thereafter the Magistrate by order dated 12.2.09 summoned all the applicants by a cryptic order without considering the evidence on record, whether the offence was made against the applicants under Sections 23, 504, 506, 307, 435 I.P.C. though in the earlier order it was mentioned that there was specific allegation against the applicant nos.1 and 2 who have slapped the complainant and tried to press the neck.
(3.) FROM a perusal of the record it appears that the applicant nos.1 and 2 were summoned by order dated 8.7.09, hence the revision was not filed against the applicant no.1 and 2. Since no summon was issued against the applicant no.3 to 10 hence it appears that prima facie no offence was disclosed in view of the evidence for summoning the applicant nos.3 to 10. However, they were neither in the party before the revisional court nor any notice was issued to them. The observation was made that since there were identical evidence, hence the same order was required to be passed against all the applicants. The observation of the revisional court shows that there was no option before the trial court to consider the material independently and the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar without considering the evidence summoned the applicants. Since the applicants were not parties in the revision and they have no information regarding order dated 25.2.09 passed by the revisional court hence according to the applicants the order could not be challenged earlier and without considering the fact and circumstances of the case the summoning order was issued on 22.2.09.;