Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. - (1.) The applicant by means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court with prayer to quash the impugned order dated 24.1.2006 passed in Complaint Case 44 of 2004, u/s 406 I.P.C., P.S. Daraganj, District:Allahabad, (Girish Vs. Dr. Satish Chandra Srivastava) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Allahabad, whereby the learned Magistrate, while allowing the protest petition has rejected the final report submitted by the police and has summoned the accused-applicant to face trial under the aforesaid sections.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State. No one appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2, today though counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of O.P. No.2. Perused the record.
(3.) The main ground on which the learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the legality and correctness of the impugned order is that the learned Magistrate, without adopting the proper procedure prescribed under section 190 Cr.P.C., has summoned the applicants, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the following judgments of this court reported in, Surya Bhan Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007 1 JIC 784 and Mohd. Yusuf and others Vs. State of U.P. and another and order, 2008 1 JIC 128 dated 22.9.2016 passed by this Court in application under Section 482 No.4320 of 2007 and Hari Ram Vs. State of U.P., 2016 95 AllCriC 156;