MANOHAR CHATURVEDI Vs. MOTILAL CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision is directed against order of II Addi tional Sessions Judge, Mathura, passed in Criminal revision, allowing the revision and setting aside order of the Magistrate dated 23rd May, 1990 summoning the opposite party and the two others under Section 319, Cr. P. C.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision are that the revisionist Manohar Chaturvedi is a retired I. P. S. Officer and resides at Lucknow. He has property at Mathura also. He filed a criminal complaint against Peradeep Kumar and unknown persons (described as opposite parties) for offences under Sections 427 and 506 I. P. C. After recording statement of the revisionist under Station 200 Cr. P. C. Magistrate directed enquiry to be made by police. After enquiry police submitted charge-sheet against Pradeep Kumar only. During trial part statement of the revisionist was recorded. Then the prosecution moved application under Section 319, Cr. P. C. for summoning some other persons including opposite party. By order dated 2ird May, 1990 Magistrate summoned opposite party Moti Lal and two other persons, namely, Chhotey Lal and Arun Kumar.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further it would be worthwhile to mention that the revisionist argued revision in person and cited number of rulings for stating broad Principles. There can be no dispute or quarrel with the settled principles of law. There can be no doubt in the principle of law that a complaint can be filed against unknown persons and it is for the Magistrate to enquire and find out the real culprits. He may conduct the euquiry himself or may get the enquiry made by police. There can be also no doubt in the Principle that for judging pt'ima facie case revisional Court cannot interfere with the discretion of the lower Court. Then there can be no doubt in the principle of law that the power under Section 319, Cr. P. C. can be exercised at any stage.