SAVITRI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings of Case No.2925 of 2008 (State v. Savitri Devi and others) pending in the Court of leaned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Faizabad and the order dated 24.06.2016.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that an NCR bearing No.3 of 2008 was registered on 05.01.2008 under Section 323 IPC against the petitioners by the opposite party no.3 with the allegation that the family members of Bhagwan Deen have assaulted his wife and Bhabhi with Lathi and Danda. After registration of the aforesaid NCR, an application under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. was moved for seeking permission to investigate the matter which was allowed by the concerned Magistrate. The opposite party no.2 investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet on 31.03.2008. After submission of charge-sheet, the concerned Magistrate had took cognizance and issued summons vide order dated 17.12.2008 to the petitioners to face trial under Section 323 of IPC. Against the order dated 17.12.2008, petitioners had approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. Case No.178 of 2009 (under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.), which was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2011 after setting aside the summoning order dated 17.12.2008 and the matter was remanded back to the concerned court with a direction that the charge-sheet in question shall be deemed to be a complaint case and the Investigating Officer shall be deemed to be the complainant and thereafter, the procedure for complaint case, as provided under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. shall be followed and appropriate orders would be passed. In pursuance of the order dated 28.04.2011 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, the petitioners had moved an application along with a copy of the said order before the learned Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate concerned rejected the said application on the ground that the complainant was only discharging his duty and prima facie offence under Section 323 is made out against the petitioners. Vide order dated 30.01.2013, learned Magistrate proceeded for summoning the opposite party no.3 as PW 1 for recording the statement while treated the said case as State case.

(3.) In pursuance of the order dated 30.01.2013, several statements of the witnesses have been recorded under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. treating the case as State case. The concerned Magistrate has summoned the petitioner without recording the statements of witnesses as well as complainant as provided under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners had moved an application before the concerned Magistrate wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the wrong procedure has been adopted due to which the entire proceedings has been vitiated. The court concerned has rejected the said application vide order dated 24.06.2016.