The mandatory requirement of recording evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. before summoning the accused and the limited nature of the inquiry under Section 202.

JUDGMENT :

1. List has been revised.

2. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 even in the revised call.

3. Vakalatnama filed today in the Court by Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.

4. Heard Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

5. This Criminal Misc. Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with following main prayers:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 15.11.1997 and 05.07.1996 and 23.09.1995 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Faizabad and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IVth, Faizabad contained in Annexure Nos.6 and 4 and 2 respectively to this writ petition.

(ii)...

(iii)..."

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and were summoned to face trial by learned court below without following the due process established by law and consequential orders were also passed without considering the evidence and material on record.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that initially the F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No.3 under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., which was registered as Case Crime No.53/1994, Police Staiton-Raunahi, District-Faizabad (now Ayodhya), thereafter, the matter was investigated thoroughly and after investigation the Investigating Officer did not find any evidence against the petitioners and submitted the final report in the court concerned. He further submits that thereafter at the time of acceptance of final report the complainant-respondent No.3 in the present case moved an application for setting aside the final report submitted by the police in the form of a protest petition.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) without considering the material placed on record and without recording the evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. allowed the application/protest petition filed by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 23.09.1995 and summoned the petitioners to face trial. He further submits that the summoning order is bad in the eye of law as no evidence was recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., thus, the procedure established by law was not followed by the court below while passing the summoning order.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that being aggrieved by the summoning order dated 23.09.1995, the petitioners moved an application for setting aside the summoning order and for discharging them from the alleged offences, thereafter, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IVth heard the petitioners and vide order dated 05.07.1996 rejected the application in a cursory manner without considering the legal position of the case in hand.

10. Thereafter, aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.1996 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IVth, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) under Section 397 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the summoning order with a prayer that the trial court may be directed to consider the contention of the petitioners regarding the validity of the order impugned therein, thereafter, the revisional court without considering the case established by the petitioners dismissed the revision vide order dated 15.11.1997 and the order is totally non speaking and has been passed without application of mind.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are passed in a cursory manner without considering the legal position and the mandatory provision of recording the evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., which has not been followed in the present case and the petitioners were directed to face trial.

12. In support of his arguments, lea