DIGVIJAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 17-2-1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judi cial Magistrate, Kairana whereby he recalled the summoning order and dis missed the complaint.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist firstly contended that there is no provision in Cr. P. C. for recalling of the order. This argument is not correct be cause in view of the famous case of Kailash Jauhari, the accused are entitled to file objections against the summoning order and the learned Magistrate alter hearing the parties may recall the summoning order.

(3.) HOWEVER, Sections 494 and 495, I. P. C. make it clear that aggrieved person, may be husband or wife who may make complaint. In this case, the husband shall be the aggrieved party when the factum of earlier marriage was concealed by the wife from the revisionist husband, with whom the subsequent marriage was performed.