BHAN MATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that Smt. Bhan Mati Devi, the petitioner instituted a complaint against respondent nos.2 to 9 briefly stating that her land has been subjected to sale by way of a forged sale deed and through cheating and conspiracy. Vide order Annexure No.3 dated 27.7.2010, the respondents were summoned to stand trial for commission of offence under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C.

(2.) THE respondent accused preferred a revision petition against order of summoning which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 15.6.2011, Annexure No.5, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda essentially on the plea that order passed by the Magistrate does not disclose the reasons for summoning the respondents. It does not meet the test of a speaking order or a reasoned order. The case has been remanded back to the Magistrate for adjudication afresh.

(3.) WHEN the contents of the order of summoning have been put to learned counsel for the petitioner, even learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that even a brief mention has been made to the relevant material from the complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded, in context of the ingredients of the offence allegedly committed by the respondent accused. Learned counsel has not been able to show from the order of summoning that relevant reasons, even briefly, have been given for summoning the respondent accused.