Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25401 of 2018 Applicant :- Babloo @ Virendnra And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Manvednra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 25th September, 2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 1240 of 2017 (Raees Ahmad vs. Babloo @ Virendra & Others), under Sections 392 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Shergarh, District Bareilly and the order dated 1st June, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, P.C. Act, Court No.1, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 497 of 2017 (Babloo @ Virendra & Others vs. State of U.P. & Another), whereby the aforesaid criminal revision preferred against the summoning order dated 25th September, 2017, has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially the opposite party no.2 had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint and consequently Complaint Case No. 665 of 2016 [Raees Ahmad (major) vs. Babloo @ Virendra & Others], came into existence. The said case was dismissed in default vide order dated 5th May, 2017. Immediately thereafter on the same set of allegations, the opposite party no.2 has filed fresh complaint dated 24th May, 2017 in terms of Section 190 Cr.P.C,which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1240 of 2017 (Raees Ahmad vs. Babloo @ Virendra & Others).
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that once the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 on the same set of allegations has already been dismissed in default vide order dated 5th May, 2017, there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein on the same set of facts, a second complaint can be filed. He, therefore, submits that the present criminal proceedings initiated by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants are not only illegal but also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A for the Sate and upon perusal of the material brought on record, matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 calling upon him to file counter affidavit.
List on the date fixed in the notice.
Until further orders of this Court, further proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case shall remain stayed.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Sushil/-