CHIMAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard and perused the order dated June 30, 1989. The grievance of Mr. Mohnani, learned counsel for the accused petitioners is that the complainant was not present on 30-6-89 and as such it was obligatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to dismiss the complaint under Sec. 256 Crimial P.C. because the offences were under Sections 147 and 323. I.P.C. The case was, therefore, triable as a summons case. It may be pointed out that on 30.6.89 the case was fixed for procuring the presence of the accused persons, it was not for any other purpose. In these circumstances if the complainant was not present and his counsel was present it would be deemed that the learned Magistrate thought it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to the next date, because the accused had not put in appearance. No interference is called for.

(2.) It appears that the summons could not be served on the accused persons and despite that warrant of arrest with bail provision was issued against them. The order of the learned Magistrate to that extent is set aside. He will issue summons again against the accused persons to procure their appearance before that court.

(3.) This application section 482 Crimial P.C. is accordingly disposed of. Application of disposed of.