SUNIL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A. G. A.

(2.) THE revisionists challenge the order dated 29-5-1997 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. THE Court below on a criminal complaint filed against the revisionist had taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. THE complaint discloses certain facts regarding cheating and criminal breach of trust committed by the accused persons against the complainant. THE learned Magistrate, after recording the evidence advanced from the side of the complainant under Sections 200/202 of Cr. P. C. (for short the 'code'), had passed the order summoning the revisionist- accused in the case and that order had been challenged by filing certain objections stating that as the complaint was not maintainable and the Court should not have issued proceed of summons etc. against the accused persons. In these objections more than one grounds were taken for non-maintainability of the compliant. THE Court below, while considering the merits of the complaint as well as the objections, found that the contentions of the accused, as made in the objections, had absolutely no force and by the impugned order the learned Magistrate had dismissed it.

(3.) IN reply to the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel, it has been submitted from the side of the opposite party that the objections, which were made on behalf of the accused persons, were not worth hearing at that particular stage of the case and if at all there was any occasion for letting of the accused on account of even non-maintainability of the complaint, it was available only at the stage of Section 245 of the Code and not before that.