The Magistrate has the power to recall the summoning order passed under Section 204, Cr. P. C. and can discharge the accused on the request of the accused that no offence is disclosed against them or the prosecution is barred by any law for the time being in force.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P. C. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows :

( 2 ) THE opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against the revisionist and three others for offences under Section 406, I. P. C. and 138 N. I. Act which was case No. 792 of 1998 pending before VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. and thereafter passed the order under Section 204, Cr. P. C. summoning the revisionist. In compliance of the process issued against the revisionist, the revisionist appeared and filed objections pleading that no case is made out against her and therefore, the order of summoning her under Section 204, Cr. P. C. be recalled. The application was not considered on the merits. On the other hand, it was rejected only on the ground that objections against the order for issuing summons are not maintainable in view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of U. P. , 2000 (1) JIC 399. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the revisionist has approached this Court.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

( 4 ) THIS revision involves a question of law only regarding which there are several decisions of this Court and therefore, I think it proper to consider the matter in detail to clarify the law, on the point of the admission stage itself.

( 5 ) THE important decision on this point was delivered by Honble Mr. Justice S. R. Singh in the well known case of Kailash Chaudhary v. State of U. P. , 1993 (30) All CC 665 : (1994 All LJ 174) which was being universally followed by the subordinate courts of Magistrate in this State. Broadly speaking the following two propositions were laid down in the above case : 1) That the order under Section 204, Cr. P. C. for issue of process is an interlocutory order and the revision against that order is barred by clause (2) of Section 397, Cr. P. C. 2) The order under Section 204, Cr. P. C. is an interim order which can be varied, rescinded or recalled by the Magistrate and the proceedings could be dropped, if the Magistrate found that no offence was disclosed.

( 6 ) THIS decision of Kailash Chaudhary (Supra) came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Uma Kant Pandey v. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karvi, 1996 All Cri R 888. The Division Bench of this Court partially overruled the judgment of Kailash Chaudhary (supra ). The preposition No. 1 mentioned above was over- ruled by the Division Bench, but preposition No. 2 was upheld. It was observed by the Division Bench"in view of what we have discussed hereinbefore we find that barring the observations of Honble S. R. Singh, J. that order issuing the processes under Section 204, Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order against which no revision would lie in the High Courts in view of the bar under Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. , rest of the judgment of Brother S. R. Singh, J. in the case of Kailash Chaudhary and others meets our full approval. "

( 7 ) IN the above background I consider the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ranjit Singh (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned Magistrate to reject the application of the revisionist to recall the order passed under Section 204, Cr. P. C. The question referred to the Full Bench was"whether a Magistrate/court before rejecting "final Report" filed by the Investigating Officer has to hear the accused on his appearing voluntarily or after notice irrespective of the fact whether or not the informant is proposed to be heard with or without a protest petition challenging the said Final Report". The Full Bench considered the various decisions on this question and answered the question as follows :"that there is no scope to uphold that the accused should be afforded an opportunity by the Magistrate/court before accepting or rejecting a final report subm