HARSH KAPOOR Vs. KOMAL KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the summoning order dated 03.08.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar (Nainital) whereby petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were summoned under Section 312 & 498 -A I.P.C. and under Sections 3/5 of Dowry Prohibition Act while petitioner No. 5 was summoned under Section 498 -A I.P.C. and under Section 3/5 Dowry Prohibition Act, passed under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) HON 'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment, in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another : AIR 2013 SC, 2248 in paragraph Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26 & 27 have held as under:

(3.) MR . Harshit Pant, learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance on the judgment of the coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Mata Garg & Co., reported in : 2011 (3), Uttaranchal Decisions, page 1666 and in the case of Manoj Kumar Miglani vs. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Misc. Application No. 193 of 2007, decided on 06.10.2012 vehemently argued that criminal revision is not maintainable against the summoning order passed by learned Magistrate, since order issuing summon is a interlocutory order. Therefore, petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code.