The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections filed for recalling a summoning order are not maintainable if the summoning order was passed after the application of judicial mind and no such objections were permissible under law.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 12-5-2000 and 24-8-2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and Additional Session Judge, Ghaziabad respectively. A further prayer has been made for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the complaint of case No. 3386 of 1997, Dabur India Ltd. v. M/s B. S. I. Ltd. and others and the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of the said complaint, which are pending before I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

( 2 ) THE Court has heard Sri P. K. Sinha for the petitioners, learned A. G. A. for the State and S/sri D. S. Tiwari, H. N. Mehrotra and Shankar Suan for Respondents No. 2 and 3.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts are that respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners for proceeding against them under Section 420 I. P. C. and Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable of instruments Act. After recording statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and holding inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. , the concerned Magistrate on 29-11-97 passed an order summoning petitioners as accused persons in respect of the aforesaid penal offences. The petitioners challenging the said order and the maintainability of complaint, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking inherent powers of this Court for quashing the summoning order and for dropping the proceeding against them which were pending in the Court below. This application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Honble R. K. Singh, J. by the order dated 24-2-1999. Against this order the petitioners filed S. I. P. No. 1063/99 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 13-8-99. It further appears that thereafter the petitioners through their counsel filed objection before the Magistrate for recalling the summoning order dated 29-11-97. This objection was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 12-5-2000. Against this order the petitioners filed revision before the Session Judge which too has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 24-8-2000. Against these two orders the present writ petition has been filed.

( 4 ) AT the outset learned counsel for the contesting-respondents raised an objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition. It is submitted by them that when on an earlier occasion this Court has rejected the petitioners application made under Section 482 Cr. P. C. against the summoning order and the S. L. P. filed against the said order has been also dismissed by the Apex Court, no objection for recalling the summoning order was maintainable before the Magistrate concerned. It is further urged that in any view of the matter there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling summoning order and therefore, in this view of the matter also objection filed by the petitioners before the Magistrate concerned, was not legally maintainable, consequently this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

( 5 ) COPY of the order whereby petitioners made claim made under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was rejected by this Court, has been annexed as Annexure-13 to this writ petition. A perusal of this order leaves no room for doubt that the application was decided on merit. After noting the various submissions made by parties counsel, this Court carefully perused the summoning order dated 29-11-97, the complaint petition and other annexures which were placed from the side of the petitioners. The Honble Judge rejected the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, and it was observed:-"the complaint petition is statement of fact which is to be examined by the Court where the case will be heard according to the procedure of law under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The parties will have ample opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the complaint or in defence of the accused. The cases relied upon by Mr. Chaudhari noted above have been caref