MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. for the State.

2. The First Information Report has been registered at the instance of the respondent No. 2 as a counterblast to the report lodged by the petitioners. After investigation, the police submitted a final report on 14-2-2003. Notice was issued to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 preferred a protest petition. Learned Magistrate, Firozabad rejected the final report and summoned the petitioners vide order dated 4-6-2004. This order was challenged in revision. The revisional Court dismissed the revision on 23-8-2006. Both the orders are impugned in the instant writ petition.

3. Submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the Magistrate allowed the protest petition, therefore, he was bound to follow the procedure provided under Section 190 (1) (a) Cr. P. C. Since he failed to record the statement of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. the order summoning the petitioners is illegal. Reliance has been placed on two decisions of this Court Anil Kumar v. State of U. P. and Anr. , 2004 (49) A. C. C. page 345, Mithlesh Kumari v. State of U. P. and Or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document