GIRIDHAR MALAVIYA, J.

( 1 ) THE Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karvi, District Banda in Case No. 20/ix/94, P. S. Mau u/sections 218, 167. 120b, 420 and 500 of I. P. C. by his order dated 7 -7 - 1995 summoned the applicant Uma Kant Pandey and five others on a complaint filed before him by one Chimmi. It was alleged in the complaint that after the death of her husband Deomati her mother-in-law O. P. No. 2 and Sangam Lal her brother-in-law did not want her to get the land of her husband and taking advantage of her stay with her parents respondent No. 2 Deomati by setting up some other women to impersonate her wanted to get the said land transferred by means of a registered deed. Consequently, on 20-61991 she gave an application to the Registrar in the Registration Office that if any such a transfer deed might be produced before him the same may not be registered. This application frustrated the design of respondent No. 2. The complainant wanted to get her share in the agricultural land separated and consequently made an application before the Assistant Collector I Class, Banda on 4-4-1992. This case was abated under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thereafter on 16- 7 -1991 she filed a complaint in the Court of S. D. M. , Karvi District Banda against Sangam Lal, Deonath, Ram Naresh, Sheo Naresh, Babu Lal, Mahadeo and Ram Prakash for assaulting her which was pending. Her in -laws were constantly on a lookout to grab her property and to achieve this object they bribed the Lekhpal Uma Kant Pandey, the applicant with the result that he submitted a false report before the Court of Tahsildar Mau District Banda u/s 34/95 of the Land Revenue Act. This act of Lekhpal Uma Kant Pandey was aimed to cause harm to the complainant and undue benefit to Deomati O. P. No. 2 as knowing very well that the complainant Chimmi was alive the Lekhpal in his report had recorded the fact that she was dead and because of this report of Lekhpal Uma Kant Pandey to the Court of Tahsildar, Mau, he got such a declaration made and the necessary proclamation issued on 15-5-1993 in connivance with the opposite parties. A false report was also submitted by him that the complainant widow of Munni Lal was searched but it was found that after her second marriage she had gone away from the village. Another report dated 16-6-1993 was submitted by him to the Court of Tahsildar Mau that her in-laws were her successors with the result that an order adverse to the complainant was passed causing damage both to the property and reputation of the complainant. It was accordingly pleaded that the O. Ps, were guilty of having committed a crime u/ sections 218/167/120b of IPC as also u/sections 499 and 500 of IPC for which a prayer was made to punish the guilty.

( 2 ) ON the initiation of the complaint, the statement of complainant u/section 200, Cr. P. C. was recorded. The Court of Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Karvi after hearing the Counsel for the complainant on the question of summoning the accused and after perusing the record came to the conclusion that a prima facie case ul sections 218/167 was disclosed against Uma Kant Pandey and against Deomati, Ram Kumar, Ram Khilawan, Ram Naresh and Ram Prasad offence u/ section 500, IPC was prima facie disclosed. Consequently the accused were summoned under the abovementioned sections to appear before the Court on 31-8-1995. Aggrieved by the said judgment this revision has been filed in the High Court by Uma Kant Pandey.

( 3 ) WHEN the revision came up for admission before Honble Mr. Justice R. N. Ray he by his order dated 17-101995 raised a question whether the issuance of process for examination of the witnesses is an interlocutory order and whether that can be interfered with by this High Court under its revisional powers. He further observed that since prima facie a disputed question of law arose as whether the issuance of summons by the Magistrate after examination of complaint and its witnesses is an interlocuto

Click Here to Read the rest of this document