MUNFAIT S/O NINNA, Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY HOME, UTTARAKHAND DISTRICT, DEHRADUN. AND RIYAJUL S/O ATAHUSSAIN R/O MARGUBPUR P.S. BAHADRABAD DISTRICT HARDWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) BY means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of order dated 09.02.2011, passed by IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar in Criminal Case No. 62 of 2010, whereby accused (petitioners) have been summoned to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under section 147, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., after the charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this court to the order dated 09.11.2011, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1023 of 2011 on the petition of Mohd Kasif, and it is pleaded that the proceedings be stayed against the petitioners. However, the ground on which the order dated 09.11.2011, is passed is not available to the present petitioners.

(3.) LASTLY , it is argued on behalf of the petitioners that co accused Kasif filed a revision before the revisional court challenging the summoning order. I have seen the copy of said order which is annexed as annexure -11 to the petition passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardwar, in Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2011. The summoning order on charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer is an interlocutory order, and against such order no revision is maintainable. However, the revisional court has entertained the same and decided it on merits, and even on merits the summoning order was found, not liable to be interfered with. As such, the rights of accused are not at all prejudiced.