Sukh Deo and Sant Raj vs State of U.P. and Ram Pit Singh

K.N. Sinha, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the order dated 31.1.2005 passed by the Magistrate, who after perusing the final report, summoned the accused on the basis of evidence collected by the investigating officer.

The petitioners were summoned under Sections 307/427 IPC. Thereafter accused-petitioners filed revision. The revisional court partly allowed the revision only to the extent that accused be summoned under Sections 324/427 IPC, instead of Sections 307/427 IPC.

The arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the revisional court has no power to summon the accused. This argument does not find force simply for the reason that accused-petitioners were already summoned by the Magistrate and the revisional court only changed the section under which they were summoned. Section 324 IPC is already minor in comparison to Section 307 IPC. Thus, accused-petitioners could not have any cause or grievance against the order of the revisional court.

The next argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Magistrate passed the order of warrant at the first instance which is beyond the scope of Section 204 Cr.P.C. but it is not so. I have perused the said provision and Section 204(1)(b) Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to issue warrant at the first instance. Thus, this argument also does not hold good.

In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is devoid of any force and it is by dismissed.