MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) First information report was lodged at police Station Tundla district Agra, by Anil Kumar Jam (opposite party No. 2) on November 30, 1984, against the applicants for offence under section 395 Indian Penal Code. The police submitted final report at the conclusion of the investigation to the Special Judge, Agra, constituted under the UP. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act 31 of 1983). A protest petition was filed in matter on March 15, 1985. The Special Judge recorded the statements of witnesses for the complainant and under the impugned order dated November 6, 1985, he summoned the applicants-accused for offence under section 395 Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the cognizance taken by the Special Judge, Agra, is vitiated for the following reasons (i) a list of the prosecution witnesses required under section 204(2) Criminal Procedure Code was not filed from the side of the complainant: (U) all the witnesses for the complainant were not examined as required under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 202 of the Code; (Hi) there is contradiction, between the averments contained in the first information report, referred to (iv) above, and the affidavit filed by R.K. Jam dated November 30, 1984 which is Annexure 5 to the application; R.K. Jam, it may be pointed, is the father of Anil Kumar Jam; (v) The statement of Smt. Mama Devi, one of the injured persons made before the Special Judge, is discrepant.