ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ashok Kumar has preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 25th Feb., 1989 passed by VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur summoning the revisionist as accused in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1989 under Sec. 376, IPC.

(2.) Heard Sri Krishna Kapoor, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri D.S. Tiwari and Sri K.N. Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. Perused me material on record.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that if the Judicial Magistrate, before passing cognizance order, took the affidavit and statement of the complainant in support of protest petition then he should have taken cognizance under Sec. 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and he should have followed the procedure of the complaint case, as such, the order is against the provisions of law. In support of his contention he has relied the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Pakhando and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2001 (43) ACC 1096 . The Division Bench of this Court held as follows: