GARG, J. - (1.) BOTH the aforesaid petitions are being decided by this common order as they are inter linked with each other. S. B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 276/2002
(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners with the prayer that the order dated 15. 3. 2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sardarsahar in Criminal Case No. 145/2001 by which he read over the contents of the offence under Sections 353, 426, 186, 504 IPC to the accused petitioners and since the same were denied by the accused petitioners, the case was fixed for recording evidence, be quashed and set aside. It arises in the following circumstances: A civil suit was filed by one Inder Chand against Godawari Devi for ejectment from the shop in question and during the pendency of that suit, the respondent No. 2 Suraj Bhan (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was appointed as Commissioner by the Court on 13. 5. 1998 and in pursuance of the order of the Court, the complainant entered the shop of the accused petitioners for the purposes of local inspection and there was some dispute over inspection between the accused petitioners and the complainant and thereafter, the complainant made a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sardarsahar on 14. 5. 1998 against the accused, petitioners and after sometime, the learned Judicial Magistrate sent the case to the police for registration of the case and upon this, the police registered FIR on 29. 5. 1998 against the accused petitioners. Against the order of sending the case to the police for registration of FIR, the accused petitioners approached this Court for quashing the FIR and this Court vide order dated 2. 2. 1999 directed that the Court should proceed under Section 200 or 202 Cr. P. C. Thereafter, vide order dated 3. 4. 2001, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sardarsahar took cognizance against the accused petitioners for the offence under Sections 353, 186, 426, 504 IPC. Thereafter, the accused petitioners appeared before the Court and made application with the prayer that the order of taking cognizance dated 3. 4. 2001 be quashed and set aside, but the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sardarsahar through order dated 18. 1. 2002 rejected that application of the accused petitioners. Thereafter, against the order of taking cognizance dated 3. 4. 2001 and rejection of their application vide order dated 18. 1. 2002, the accused petitioners approached this Court by filing misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. being S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 242/2002 and when the same was pending, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sardarsahar through order dated 15. 3. 2002 read over the offences under Sections 353, 426, 186, 504 IPC to the accused petitioners as no stay order was granted by this Court in the above misc. petition No. 242/2002. Aggrieved from the order dated 15. 3. 2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Sardarsahar, the accused petitioners have preferred this revision petition. In this petition, the main contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioners is that since the complainant Commissioner was acting beyond the scope of the order passed by the Civil Court, therefore, if any resistance was made by the accused petitioners, no offence was committed by them and apart from this, since the complainant Commissioner was officer of the Court, therefore, in absence of the report of the Court, therefore, in absence of the report of the Court, no cognizance could have been taken. Hence, the impugned order dated 15. 3. 2002 reading over the contents of the offence to the accused petitioners, cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supported the impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and gone through the materials available on record.
(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that the offences, which were read over to the accused petitioners through the impugned order, were to be tried as summons case. The trial of summon cases by the Magistrate is dealt with in Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure commencing from Sections 251 to 259 Cr. P. C. For convenience, Section 251 Cr. P. C. is quoted here: " 251. Substance of accusation to be stated.-When in a summons case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. " ;