S.P. Pathak, J. - (1.) BY this petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made to quash the order taking cognizance against the Petitioner under Section 302/34 IPC along with one co -accused Brij Lal.
(2.) I do not find a reason to admit this petition and to keep it pending for the simple reason that the learned Counsel at the very beginning submitted that he only wants in this case the relief that as co -accused Brij Lal has been summoned through bailable warrant , he should also be treated in the same manner. It has been the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that FIR No. 29/1993 was registered in the police station Mandrayal district Karauli for the offence under Section 302 and 120B IPC and after investigation, final report was given and thereafter on protest petition cognizance was taken. It is also contended that the matter came to this Court and the same was remitted back and after 17 years cognizance has been taken and warrant of arrest has been issued against the Petitioner and the co -accused in the case has been summoned through bailable warrant, therefore, he also requires to be summoned through bailable warrant.
(3.) LEARNED public prosecutor contends that in a case under Section 302 IPC, the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the accused -Petitioner through warrant of arrest.;