AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.C. Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for opposite party No. 4 and Sri Manphul Singh for the complainant-opposite party No. 1.
The revisionists are accused in a Complaint Case No. 322 of 1993 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Farrukhabad under Sections 498A, 406 and 494, I.P.C. as well as u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, The complaint has been filed by opposite party No. 1, Smt. Neeta Saxena, who is the wife of the revisionist No. 3, Ashok Kumar Saxena. According to (he revisionists there was no evidence, ground or justification to summon them; the complaint was time-barred; it was filed after the revisionist No. 3, Ashok Kumar Saxena, filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Civil Judge, Farrukhabad on 16.5.1990 which was registered as Original Suit No. 224 of 1990 and was pending.
This Court has held in the case of Kailash Chandra v. State 1994 ALJ 174, that the Magistrate is competent to recall process issuing order, if he is satisfied that it ought not to have been issued.
Under the circumstances of the case, it is ordered that in case the present revisionists file objections before the Court below against their summoning within one month from today along with certified copy of this order, the Court below shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order. Till then, they are permitted to appear either in person or through counsel. The Court below would either reject or allow the objections of the revisionists by its reasoned order and further action would follow in accordance with such reasoned order.
The revision is disposed of accordingly.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the revisionist within three days from today on payment of usual charges.