Mohd. Riyaz alias Guddu and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the Respondents and perused the record.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.8.2010,. passed by Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad as well as the order dated 7.7.2010, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. IX, Farrukhabad in Case Crime No. 3004 of 2010, u/s 307, I.P.C., P.S. Jahanganj, district Farrukhabad.

It appears that the police filed charge-sheet in the aforesaid case and the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. The Petitioners moved an application for recall of the summoning order which was rejected by the learned A.C.J.M. on 7.7.2010 and the revision filed by the Petitioners has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.

If a Magistrate takes cognizance either on police report or complaint and passes summoning order, he has no power to recall, review or modify the summoning order. Therefore, the prayer for recall was not maintainable and the orders passed by the courts below are perfectly correct and require no interference.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the Petitioners Mohd. Riyaz alias Guddu, Tausif, Muzammil and Nawab Zama appear and apply for bail within one month from today their bail prayer in Case Crime No. 3004 of 2010 u/s 307, I.P.C., P.S. Jahanganj, district Farrukhabad shall be considered and disposed of, if possible, on the same day by the courts below in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others,

Till the surrender of the Petitioners before the Court or expiry of the aforesaid period of one month, whichever is earlier, the Petitioners shall not be arrested.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India is disposed of.