Vijay Kumar Verma, J. - (1.) "Whether Revision against summoning order is maintainable," is the main point that falls for consideration in this revision, by means of which summoning order dated 18.08.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st, Jaunpur, in Complaint Case No. 1456 of 2005 (Dinesh Kumar vs. Jag Narain & others), under sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC has been challenged.
(2.) BY the impugned order, the revisionists Jag Narain, Gayatri Devi, Sangita and Umesh have been summoned to face the trial under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC. on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant Dinesh Kumar (O.P. No.2 herein). Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that a complainant was filed on 17.06.2005 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Jaunpur by the complainant Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay impleading revisionists as accused. Annexure (3) is the copy of that complaint. Allegations made in the complainant, in brief, are that on 13.06.2005 at about 2.00 p.m. when the complainant was sleeping in his dalan, Jag Narain, his wife Smt. Gayatri Devi, his son Umesh Kumar and Smt. Sangita, wife of Umesh Kumar having lathi-danda came on the door of his house and began to hurl abuses and told the complainant to ask his father for compromise. When the complainant told the accused persons to have a talk for compromise with his father, the accused persons, having made preparation to cause harm entered into the dalan of the house of complainant and began to cause mar- peet. When the complainant raised noise, the witness Raghubansh, Santosh and other villagers came there and saw the incident. Thereafter, the accused persons went away giving threatening. After recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 and making inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., the court below passed the impugned order summoning the accused-revisionists to face the trial as stated herein-above. Hence this revision. I have heard Sri S.K. Dubey, Advocate, appearing for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Sri Rakesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate, appearing for O.P. No. 2 at length and also perused the entire material on record carefully.
(3.) AT the outset, a preliminary objection was raised by Sri Rakesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate, appearing for the complainant, about maintainability of the Revision against summoning order and it was vehemently contended by him that in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and others [2004 (50) ACC 924] and Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra and another[2005(51) ACC 684], the only remedy available to the accused against summoning order is to invoke the jurisdiction of High Court in the proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C. and hence, this Revision against the summoning order is not maintainable, being barred by section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. Sri S.K. Dubey, Advocate, appearing for the revisionists refuting aforesaid contention submitted that order issuing process against the accused is not interlocutory order and hence the Revision against summoning order would not be barred by section 397 (2) Cr.P.C.;