Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The perusal of the impugned summoning order shows that the learned Magistrate has simply mentioned that statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were taken which were duly perused. That accusations made in the complaint have been supported by an oral statement and therefore prima face case is made out. This Court has already held in the case of Krishna Bihari Srivastava Versus State, reported in 2006 (55) ACC 323, that summoning order should be such that from its perusal it may appear that mind has been applied. In the present case the injury report has also been brought on record. Both the injuries have been found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object but without looking into this point the learned Magistrate has summoned the petitioners under Section 324 I.P.C. also. This is also indicative of the fact that he has not applied his mind while passing the summoning order, it is submitted.
Therefore I find it to be a fit case for invoking the inherent powers of this Court. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.01.2010 is hereby quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010 PAL/