GEETA AND ANOTHER Vs. PANCH DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 15.11.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in criminal case no. 1699 of 2007 under Section 147, 504, 506 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as well as the order dated 18.08.2008, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / I F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar, in criminal revision no. 08 of 2008.

(2.) A criminal complaint case was filed by the respondent Panch Dev against Ram Vilas, Mool Chand, Maddu, Asha Devi and two major daughters of Mool Chand in respect of an incident, which took place on 12.08.2007, at 05:00 P.M., in Village Bhagchuri, within the jurisdiction of police station Kotwali Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Respondent Panch Dev took recourse to the provisions of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in an effort to lodge the FIR, but learned Magistrate, instead of directing the police station concerned to lodge the FIR, directed the respondent Panch Dev to record his statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and statements of Arvind Kumar, Parwati Devi, Om Prakash and Ramrati were recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of such statements, Ram Vilas, Mool Chand, Maddu, Asha Devi and two major daughters of Mool Chand were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 504, 506 of IPC and the one under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, vide order dated 15.11.2007. Aggrieved against said order dated 15.11.2007, a criminal revision was preferred on behalf of the accused persons, which was rejected vide order dated 18.08.2005, on the sole ground that the revision against the summoning order was not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved against said order dated 18.08.2005, present applicants Geeta and Reeta moved application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that the names of the present applicants viz. Geeta and Reeta were not disclosed in the complaint filed by respondent Panch Dev. It is also an admitted fact that neither Panch Dev under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. nor other witnesses in the course of recording evidence under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., disclosed the names of the present applicants. Only this much was said that two major daughters of Mool Chand were present on the scene of occurrence and participated in the alleged incident. Summonses were issued to those two major daughters in their names. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that when the names of those two major daughters of Mool Chand were not disclosed, how could the summonses be issued to them by their names