DINA NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dina Nath, Surendra prasad and Shyam Dhar the revisionists/accused, have preferred this Revision against the order dated 15.4.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Allahabad thereby rejecting the application of the accused persons regarding their claim of discharge for the offence against them.

(2.) I have heard Sri Krishna Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri B.M. Pandey learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned AGA on behalf of the State of U.P.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the revisionists that since the charge-sheet against the accused/revisionists related to the offence of the category of non cognizable offence, therefore, the charge-sheet submitted by the police against the accused shall amount to a complaint as per provisions under Section 2(d) of, Cr.P.C. and in a complaint case, no process of summoning the accused can be issued unless a complaint case procedure is adopted and since in this case, the learned lower Court did not adopt a procedure provided for trial of a complaint case, therefore, the entire proceeding against the accused/revisionists is null and void and the learned lower Court committed error thereby adopting the procedure for trial as police challani case and the revisionists are entitled to be discharged as per provisions under Section 258, Cr.P.C.