This revision has been preferred on behalf of revisionists/accused persons against the order dated 30.11.04 and 11.8.04 passed by learned lower court in criminal case No. 4751/03 Malti Vs. Chandra Prakash and others under sections 498-A/323/504/506 I.P.C. P.S. Rail Bazar District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of A.C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar whereby as per impugned order dated 11.8.04 the accused persons/revisionists have been summoned for the offence under sections 498-A/323/504/506 I.P.C. and as per impugned order dated 30.11.04 the accused persons/revisionists have been summoned on their new address on the application moved by the complainant in a case pending before the Magistrate.
No one appeared on behalf of revisionists.
Sri Babu Lal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is present. Learned A.G.A. on behalf of State is also present.
Heard and perused the record.
It is revealed that in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11595/04 the accused persons/revisionists of this revision had challenged the impugned order. This Court as per order dated 2.11.04 in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Application had directed the accused persons to appear before the trial court and raised their objections to the to the initiation of trial against the offences as well as the proceedings of framing of charges. That relief was granted up to the stage of framing of charges provided the applicants i.e. the revisionists of this revision after securing bail giving an undertaking to the satisfaction of trial court which is mentioned in the impugned order. It seems that the revisionists again preferred this revision thereby challenging the impugned order dated 11.8.04 regarding summoning of the accused persons for the offences. Since that matter has already been decided by this Court as per order dated 2.11.04 in the aforesaid criminal misc. application, I do not find any substance to this revision pertaining to impugned order dated 11.8.04.
So far the question of challenging the order dated 30.11.04 is concerned, that order is merely interlocutory order passed by the lower court in the proceedings of the case to ensure the appearance of the accused persons/revisionists thereof summoning them on the correct address given by the complainant of the case. I do not find any illegality in that order and, therefore, the revision against the impugned order dated 30.11.04 is also liable to be dismissed. Therefore, this revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.1.2010 GNY