The need for compliance with procedural requirements under Section 202 and Section 210 of Cr.P.C., and the recording of reasons in summoning orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Jageshwari Prasad Mathur, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sayyed Farooq Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to stay the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.942/18 (Smt. Salma Khan Vs. Mohammad Aizaz), under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Unnao alongwith the summoning order dated 13.9.2018.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that on 11.3.2012, the opposite party no.1 got married with Aayaz @ Babu son of applicant no.1 at Lucknow, and as Aayaz was working at Saudi Arabia, therefore, the opposite party no.1 is willing to live with him at Saudi Arabia. When Aayaz, while leaving the opposite party no.1 in India, went to Saudi Arabia on 20.4.2015 then she started creating trouble in the entire family and went to live separately at Balaganj and then to her parents' home at Unnao. Thereafter, a complaint was filed on 31.1.2018. Further an F.I.R. was also lodged on 16.2.2018. The trial court passed the order on 13.9.2018 and summoned the present applicant under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is under challenge in the instant application.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that two criminal proceedings were initiated simultaneously -one by way of lodging F.I.R. on 16.2.2018 and another by way of instituting a complaint on 13.1.2018 wherein the present applicant has been summoned. He submits that the trial court has violated mandate of Section 202 (1) of Cr.P.C. He further added that admittedly, the applicants reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned as the applicants reside at Lucknow and summons have been issued by the trial court at Unnao. He added that neither any enquiry nor any investigation has been done prior to proceeding in the matter, which is apparent from the order itself. Adding his arguments, he further submits that there is also violation of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. as once the Magistrate is proceeding in the complaint case and, during the course of hearing, if it comes in the knowledge of the Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence, which is the subject matter of enquiry or trial by him, the Magistrate shall stay proceedings of such enquiry or trial and shall call for a report in the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. It is further prayed that if a report is made under Section 173 Cr.P.C., such Magistrate shall enquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on the police report. He added that so far as the present case is concerned, the F.I.R. was also lodged on 16.2.2018 for the same offence and without calling any report from the Investigating officer, the trial court proceeded in the complaint case which is against the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. He further argued that the summoning order dated 13.9.2018 is unreasoned and have been passed in a cavalier manner. He submits that it has been a settled law that while proceeding in the matter arising out of complaint case if a Magistrate is of the view that summon be issued to the accused persons, the reason must be recorded which is missing in the impugned order dated 13.9.2018 and, in this view also, the order dated 13.9.2018 is not sustainable.

5. Further contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are in-laws, husband and brother in law of the opposite party no.1. There are general allegations against the applicants for committing torture for the dowry though the applicants are residing separately and since long back the opposite party no.2 is not residing w