DEO DUTT Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) A complaint was filed in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Sahaswan, District Badaun under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist for summoning the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477 IPC, police station Gunnaur, District Badaun.

(3.) The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., respectively, on the basis of which the learned Magistrate found a prima-faice case against the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 forging a 'will' and tried to use it by filing the same in the court. Thus, the learned Magistrate on 11-2-2000 summoned the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 to stand their trial for the said offences. It appears that on coming to know about the summoning order dated 11-2-2000, the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 filed their objections by means of an application paper No.20-Ka and prayed to the Court that the summoning order be set-aside as the same is not in accordance with law.