JUDGMENT :

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.K. Rastogi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been has been filed by the present revisionist against order dated 24.02.2023, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, arising out of Case Crime No.0389/2022, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Maanpur, District Sitapur, whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur summoned the present revisionist.

3. Brief facts of the instant case are that a first information report bearing Case Crime No.0389/2022 came to be lodged against six named accused persons including the present revisionist by the first informant, Vijay stating therein that his sister was married to accused Pinku @ Parmanand about 15 years ago and from their wedlock five children were born. It is also mentioned in the first information report that the sister of the first informant was being harassed continuasly by all six named accused persons including the present revisionist. Due to harassment meeted out by the named accused persons including the present revisionist, the sister of the first informant, Silpy is stated to have committed suicide on 29.11.2022 by hanging herself. Upon conclusion of investigation, a police report in the form of charge sheet came to be submitted against accused, Pinku @ Parmanand/husband of the deceased and Shiv Bhagwan only. The statements of first informant, Vijay, mother of the deceased, Smt. Kiran and another brother of deceased, Atul were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein they have stated that the accused, Shiv Bhagwan and present revisionist also harassed the victim/deceased and she was also assaulted by Shiv Bhagwan and the present revisionist. Thereafter, on the basis of aforesaid statements, vide impugned order dated 24.02.2023, learned C.J.M. Sitapur has took cognizance for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and summoned the present revisionist also including the other accused Pinku @ Parmanand and Shiv Bhagwan.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed error in issuing process to the present revisionist against whom charge sheet was not submitted before learned trial Court, the impugned order is therefore, patently illegal. His further submission is that if the learned C.J.M. is found to be entitled to issue process at this stage under Section 190 Cr.P.C. against any person against whom no charge sheet has been filed, then in such eventuality, the provision contained under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be rendered nugatory.

5. He has also submitted that as the learned Magistrate is not empowered to issue process to any person other than the person against whom a charge sheet has been laid by the police, therefore, such order taking cognizance of the matter and issuing process is hit by the provision contained in Section 461 Cr.P.C which declares such proceeding, an irregular proceeding.

6. To buttress his aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prasad Shrikanht Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015 (3) SCC (Cri) 138 and Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police, 1985 AIR (SC) 1285.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer by submitting that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has unfettered power to issue summon against any such person who has not been mentioned as an accused in the charge sheet or arraigned in the first information report. To lend support to his aforesaid submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nahar Singh v. State of U.P., (2022) 5 SCC 295 .

8. Having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of this case and upon perusal of the records, it transpires that a first information report bearing Case Crime No.0389/2022 came to be lodged against six named