SHEELA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Jain, J. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A. G. A, for opposite party No. 1.

(2.) ON a complaint by the opposite party No. 2, the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Bareilly summoned the present revisionists under Sections 395/397, I. P. C in case No. 419 of 1984. Aggrieved, they have preferred this revision.

(3.) THIS Court has laid down in the case of Kailash Chaudhari v. State of U. P. , 1993 (30) ACC644 (SC), that a Magistrate is competent to recall the process issuing the order, if he is satisfied that it ought to have not been issued. Under the circumstances, it is directed that in case the revisionists file objections within two months from today before the Magistrate concerned to recall the summoning order he shall consider their prayer and pass a reasoned order. They shall have the liberty to appear before him in person or through counsel. The action shall ultimately follow on the reasoned order to be passed by the Magistrate one way or the other. The revision is disposed of with these observations. Revision disposed of. .