The main legal point established is that there is no provision for recalling the summoning order, and the Magistrate has no power to recall the order passed by him.

S.C. AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned AG.A for the State and perused the material available on record. No notice is issued to private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private respondents to apply for variation or modification of this order if they feel so aggrieved.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.2.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra in complaint case No. 7426 of 2008, Jasoo Ram v. Kamala Devi and others as well. as order dated 22.9.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in criminal revision No. 34 of 2010.

2. On a complaint filed by respondents No.2 & 3, the petitioners were summoned to face trial under sections 167,177,182,218 and 466 IPC. The summoning order was challenged by means of an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 30410 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.12.2009 with a direction to move an appropriate application within 15 days raising all the grievances before the Magistrate. Such an application was moved by the petitioners and the same was rejected by the Magistrate and the revision has also been dismissed. Hence, this petition.

After passing of the summoning order under section 204 Cr.P.C., there is no provision for moving an application under section 203 Cr.P.C. for recalling the summoning order. In fact, the Magistrate has no power to recall the order passed by him.

Only application under section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. or 245 (2) Cr.P.C. could be moved praying for discharge at appropriate stage.

In these circumstances, I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the Pradhan and petitioner No.2 is the Secretary of Village Panchayat. The allegations against them are that they reported false death of respondents No.2 & 3 on account of which they could not get old age pension. The plea of the petitioners is that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioners, and as soon as the mistake came to their notice, it was rectified and now respondents No. 2 & 3 are getting old age pension.

4. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail be considered by the Courts below on the same day keeping in view a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another v. State of U.P. as affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. For a period of three weeks, no coercive process shall be executed issued against the petitioners.

Petition Disposed Of