- (1.) M. C. Jain, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the revisionist, learned AG. A. for opposite party No. 4 and Sri Manphul Singh for the complainant-opposite party No. 1.
(2.) THE revisionists are accused in a complaint case No. 322 of 1993 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad under Sections 498-A, 406 and 494, I. P. C. as well as under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. THE com plaint has been filed by opposite party No. 1, Smt. Neeta Saxena, who is the wifeof the revisionist No. 3, Ashok Kumar Saxena. According to the revisionists there was no evidence, ground or justification to sum mon them; the complaint was time barred; it was filed after the revisionist No. 3, Ashok Kumar Saxena, filed suit for restitu tion of conjugal rights in the Court of Civil Judge, Farrukhabad on 16-5-1990 which was registered as original suit No. 224/90 and was pending. This Court has held in the case of Kailash Chandra v. State, 1994 ALJ 174, that the Magistrate is competent to recall process issuing order, if he is satisfied that it ought not to have been issued. Under the circumstances of the case, it is ordered that in case the present revisionists file objections before the Court below against their summoning within one month from today alongwith certified copy of this order, the Court below shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order. Till then, they are per mitted to appear either in person or through Counsel. The Court below would either reject or allow the objections of the revisionists by its reasoned order and fur ther action would follow in accordance with such reasoned order.
(3.) THE revision is disposed of accord ingly. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the revisionist within three days from today on payment of usual charges. Revision disposed of. .;