HARI RAM RAIKAWAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been preferred by revisionists/accused against order dated 14.2.2005 passed by learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Jhansi in criminal case No. 2339/04, Smt. Krishna Devi v. Raju Raikawar and others un ­der section 406 IPC, P.S. Prem Nagar, Dis ­trict Jhansi by which the learned Magistrate summoned both the revisionists to face trial for the offence under section 406 I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated that the facts are that a Criminal Complaint was filed by Smt Krishna Devi (opposite party No. 2) before learned IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Jhansi, which was registered as Criminal Case No.2339/04 Smt. Krishna Devi v. Raju Raikawar and oth ­ers alleging that the accused No. 1 Raju Raikawar is her husband and revisionists 1 and 2 (accused) are her father -in -law and mother -in -law respectively. It has been further alleged by the complainant that her divorce had taken place with accused No. 1 Raju Raikawar (non revisionist) and that both revisionists/accused have misappro ­priated her 'stridhan'. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of opposite party No. 2 under section 200 Cr.P.C. and also recorded the statements of witnesses Moolchand and Pramdd as C.W.I and C.W.2 under section 202 Cr.P.C. After considering the statements of the complainant and wit ­nesses and the material on the record the Magistrate vide the impugned order, summoned both the revisionists/accused for their trial for the offence under section 406 IPC and dismissed the complaint against Raju Raikawar (non -revisionist). Feeling aggrieved the present revision has been filed by the revisionists/accused.

(3.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 as well as learned AGA that the present revision has filed against the summoning order passed in a complaint case which is an interlocutory order and same is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal JindaJ and others1. 2004 (50) ACC 924 (SC) = 2004 (24) AIC 120 (SC).Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 also contended that the accused has no locus standi to be heard before passing of the order summoning him and that griev ­ance, if any may be raised by him before trial Court before framing of the charge. In support of this contention learned Counsel placed reliance on Smt. Usha Devi Agrawal v. State of U.P. and another 2004 (50) ACC 226.