TEJMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 5. 12. 2005 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kota in Criminal Revision No. 243/2005 whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 22. 10. 2005 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Itawa in Criminal Case No. 356/2005 taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and summoning them through non-bailable warrant has been upheld.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant non- petitioner No. 2 Radha Bai filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Itawa on 15. 6. 2004 which was forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. for investigation. During the course of investigation, both the parties entered into a compromise and filed a joint application before the investigating officer on the basis of which the negative final report was filed before the Court on 15. 10. 2004. THE final report was accepted by the learned Magistrate on 12. 4. 2005. However, a protest petition was filed by the complainant non-petitioner No. 2 before the learned Magistrate on 22. 10. 2005 whereupon the order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and summoning the petitioners through non-bailable warrants was passed. THE petitioners preferred a revision petition before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kota against the said order which was disallowed as indicated above. Hence, this petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Maj. Genl. A. S. Gauraya & Anr. vs. S. N. Thakur & Anr. (AIR 1986 SC 1440), Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. Kali Singh (AIR 1977 SC 2432), Vinod Baid vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2002 (2) RLR 56), H. S. Bains vs. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) (AIR 1980 SC 1883) and State of Kerala vs. M. M. Manikantan Nair (2001 (3) Supreme 526 ). But in none of these cases, the controversy in the present petition has been dealt with or decided. In none of these cases final report was accepted and the said order was recalled because no notice as was required to be given to the complainant was given to him. Therefore, these authorities to do not help the petitioner.