SARDAR JASPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision has been filed against a summoning order in a private case under Section 406, I. P. C. Office report is that report regarding limitation cannot be made because certified copy of the impugned order has not been filed. Consider ing the nature of the case, it does not appear to reasonable to wait certified copy of the impugned order.

(2.) COPIES of complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. have been filed and it has been argued that the case is clearly a case of balance of price and a Criminal Complaint has been filed only to exert pressure on the revisionist a resident of Bareilly, for compelling him to fork out money under the pressure of a criminal action. This matter can be and should be fairly agitated under Section 245 (2), Cr. P. C. by way of application for discharge which can be moved at any stage and even before any evidence under Section 244, Cr. P. C. is adduced. It has then been contended that the revisionist shall be compelled to go from Bareilly to Kanpur where the complaint has been instituted and secure bail for appearance. For relieving the revisionist of ail harassment, it is made very-very clear that in cases of private complaints Magistrate should not take opposite parties (accused) in custody under Section 309 (2) but should, in all cases where the parties concerned voluntarily appear, to resort to Section 88, Cr. P. C. and require the parties concerned only to furnish bounds with or without securities, for appearance or future dates. In cases where the opposite party of a complaint case resides at along distance as in this case, the Magistrate should exempt personal attendance of the opposite party of the complaint case and allow them to appear through Counsel under Section 205, Cr. P. C.