Non-examination of all witnesses does not invalidate summons if sufficient evidence supports the charges; proceedings against deceased individuals are abated.

JUDGMENT :

Brij Raj Singh, J.

1. Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the private opposite parties, has filed objection to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Raj Kr. Singh Suryvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the private opposite parties, and perused the record.

3. By means of this application, the applicant has prayed for the following main prayer:-

"Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Room No. 2, Barabanki, in Criminal Revision no. 128 of 2017 (Drig Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and ors.), arising out of Complaint Case No. 191/2016 (Ram Sanehi v. Drig Pal Singh and ors.), bearing Case Crime No. 451-A/2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, I.P.C., Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki, contained as Annexure No. 1 to the application."

4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had lodged F.I.R. against the opposite party No. 2 and ors., which was registered at Case Crime No. 451-A/2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, I.P.C., Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki. The investigating officer, after investigation, submitted final report on 28.06.2009, which was challenged by the applicant by filing protest petition on 18.01.2010. The said petition filed by the applicant was treated as Complaint and thereafter statements of the applicant and six witnesses were recorded. The Magistrate after going through the material on record dismissed the Complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 14.04.2015. The applicant challenged the order dated 14.04.2015 in Criminal Revision No. 61/2015. The same was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrate for fresh disposal of the case. The accused, feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of remand, filed Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4152 of 2015, which was allowed on 07.01.2016 and it was remitted back to the revisional court with direction that the accused persons be impleaded as opposite parties and it was directed that the case be decided after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the applicant impleaded all the accused and they also appeared before the revisional court. The revision was allowed and matter was remitted back to the Magistrate for deciding complaint as fresh. The order was challenged by the accused by filing Application under Section 482 No. 5207/16, which was rejected vide order dated 01.05.2017 and the order dated 28.07.2016 was upheld. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, issued summoning order in Complaint Case No. 191 of 2016 in Case Crime No. 451-A/2008 to Drigpal Singh and others on 31.05.2017. One of the accused Drigpal Singh filed revision bearing Revision No. 128 of 2017 against summoning order dated 31.05.2017, which was allowed on the ground that all the witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses have not been produced as per the provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and it has been observed that it is mandatory for the court to call upon the complainant to produce all the witnesses and examine them on oath, if the offence is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. The aforesaid order was passed by the Revisional Court on 13.04.2018. Being aggrieved, Ram Sanehi filed the instant application under section 482