High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chandra Shekhar Bajpai v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 154 of 2004  RD-AH 16945 (26 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 12
Crl. Rev. No. 154 of 2004.
Chandra Shekhar Bajpai........................Revisionist
State of U.P. & another..........................Respondents.
Hon. Vijay Kumar Verma, J.
1. List has been revised. None is present for the revisionist and O.P. No. 2. Heard argument of learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. Instant revision has been preferred against the summoning order dated 16.03.1996 passed by CJM Mahoba, in Complaint. Case No. 1909 of 1997 (Durga Prasad vs. Chandra Shekhar & others), under section 499, 500 and 501 IPC, P.S. Mahoba, District Mahoba and order dated 17.10.2003, whereby the application under section 204 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist has been rejected.
3. By the impugned order dated 16.03.1996 the accused-revisionist and two other accused were summoned to face the trial under section 499, 500 and 501 IPC. After that summoning order, an application to dismiss the complaint under section 204 Cr. P. C. was moved by the revisionist in the court below, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17.10.2003.
4. In view of the law laid down by Hon. Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal and others 2004 (50) ACC 924 and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and another 2005 (51) ACC 684, the Magistrate has no right to recall its summoning order. It has been further held by Hon'ble Apex Court that 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. Therefore, the court below did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 17.10.1993 whereby the objections of the accused against summoning order filed in the form of application under section 204 Cr. P. C. have been rejected.
5. So far as the impugned summoning order is concerned, the revision against that order also is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned cases. This Court also in the case of Bhajan Lal & others vs. State of U.P. & another 2006 (55) ACC 942 has held that revision against summoning order is not legally maintainable. Hence this revision has to be dismissed on this ground alone. If he so advised, the accused/revisionist may move this Court in the proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order as well as the proceedings of complaint case
6. With these observations, revision is hereby dismissed.
7. Office to send a copy of this judgment to the court below for further necessary action.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.