RAJESH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. representing opposite party No. 1. In spite of service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

(2.) This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging summoning order dated 14.9.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar in Complaint Case No. 271 of 2011, (Meena Devi Vs. Shatrughan and others), under Sections 504, 506, 352 I.P.C., P.S. Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants invited attention of the Court to summoning order dated 14.9.2012 He submits that summoning order passed by Court below is wholly arbitrary and therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for applicants submits that Court below has simply recorded a conclusion that on basis of complaint, statement of the complainant and his witnesses, prima facie an offence under sections 504, 506, 352 I.P.C appears to have been committed. The said conclusion recorded by Court below is not preceded by a discussion of allegations made in complaint or statement of the complainant and his witnesses as recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. He, therefore, submits that in absence of any finding recorded by the Court below, on the basis of the averments made in the complaint statement of complainant and that of witnesses, no prima facie satisfaction was recorded by Court below for summoning the applicants under sections 504, 506, 352 I.P.C.