Neeraj alias Guddu and Ors. vs State of U.P.& Ors.

S, N. Saxena, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and O. P. No. 3 Krishna Nand Gupta. Also perused this Court''s decision reported in 1990 Cr LJ 1659 : 1991 JIC 710 (All)Kalyan & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors. wherein it was held that summoning of accused on the basis of complaint made under different sections of Indian Penal Code in a case where the police also had submitted chargesheet was not invalid. In this revision the police had submitted chargesheet against revisionists Nos. 1 and 2 only, regarding revisionist No 3, it was observed in the chargesheet that the allegations against him appeared to be incorrect. The complainant, thereafter, instituted a complaint in the court of the concerned Magistrate for summoning revisionist No. 3 and also for summoning all the three revisionists in respect of offences under Section 307, I. P. C. and 307 read with Section 34, I. P. C. The application of the complainant was allowed by the concerned Magistrate on 781991. The revisionists feeling aggrieved preferred this revision application.

Perused Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1974, according to which the impugned order of the concerned Magistrate is perfectly valid.

He, after perusing the injury report and other evidence adduced by the complainant arrived at the conclusion that revisionist Sri Om Prakash Chaube was also liable to be summoned for the offences including the offence under Section 307,1. P. C. and revisionist Nos. 1 and 2 were liable for prosecution under Sections 307 and 307/34,1. P. C. and the accused persons summoned on the basis of the complaint sand those against whom chargesheet had been submitted shall be tried together for the offences after consolidation of both the cases.

It was contended for the revisionists that the learned Magistrate should have examined all the prosecution witnesses before passing the impugned order and that the same was illegal and invalid as one eyewitness was not examined by him. The argument appears to be devoid of merits. The consolidated trial of all the three accused persons in the eye of law shall be deemed to have arisen out of police report. It need not be emphasised that in a case on the basis of police report it was not obligatory for the learned Magistrate to examine all the prosecution witnesses.

The revision application in view of the above discussion is dismissed. Revisionists Nos. 1 and 2 shall be granted reasonable time by the learned Magistrate for moving bail application before him which shall be decided expeditiously. Learned Magistrate is further directed to decide the bail application, if any, of revisionist Om Prakash Chaube also very expeditiously.

Revision dismissed.