ORDER :

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 04.09.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Old Case No.1118 of 2018 (New Case No.4678 of 2021) (Smt. Rajni Mishra vs. Laxmi Shankar Pandey and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 356 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Katra, District-Mirzapur, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an NCR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 29.09.2014 against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC at Police Station-Kotwali Katra, District-Mirzapur. Subsequently, on 10.10.2014, an application under Section 155(2) CrPC was filed by the opposite party no.2 before the concerned Magistrate requesting that the concerned SHO be directed to conduct the investigation in the above NCR, on which, the aforesaid case was treated as complaint case and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been summoned vide order dated 04.09.2015. Pursuant to which, the applicants appeared before this Court and have obtained bail. Therefore, the present application has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings pursuant to the summoning order.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the summoning order has not been passed considering the mandatory provision of Section 204(2) of CrPC wherein it has been mentioned that before issuing summon, the list of prosecution witnesses has to be provided. He further submits that as the said provision is mandatory in nature and the complainant/opposite party no.2 having not furnished the list of witnesses, therefore, the issue of process against the accused-applicant is improper and illegal. He further submits that no offence under the relevant section is made out, therefore, the entire proceedings are nothing but abuse process of law and the same may be quashed by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the complainant/opposite party no.2 has named herself as a witness of the incident in the complaint and, therefore it cannot be said that no list of witnesses has been furnished. In this regard, it is submitted that it is not necessary to furnish a separate list of witnesses and the complainant/opposite party no.2 having been named as a witness in the complaint itself, the same is sufficient compliance of the provisions prescribed under Section 204(2) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as the said provision under Section 204(2) Cr.P.C., regarding furnishing of a list of witnesses before issue of process to the accused is only a matter of procedure, the same is not mandatory and the same can be complied before commencement of the trial, to avoid any prejudice to the accused persons. Even otherwise, the applicants have already given up their claim as the summoning order of the year 2015 is being challenged after a laps of about 7 years and after being released on bail. As regards the other contentions that the offence under the relevant sections has not made out, perusal of the FIR itself goes to show that the applicants after using abusive language entered into the house of the opposite party no.2 and assaulted the opposite party no.2 and her family members with kicks, fists, lathi and danda, due to which they sustained injuries. They also threatened her to leave the house or to face dire consequences. Thus, the allegations are prima facie made out. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record.

7. The principal issue which thus arises is with regard to the manner of taking cognizance and issuing process as per the procedure prescribed under the Code and as t