Alok Singh, J.

Present petition is preferred assailing the order dated 12.03.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, whereby learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the final report submitted by the Investigating Agency and was further pleased to issue process against the accused/petitioner, herein, as well as judgment and order dated 23.06.2015 passed by Revisional Court whereby revision, filed by the accused challenging the summoning order, was dismissed.

2. Undisputedly, complainant/respondent no. 2, herein, has filed civil suit being O.S. No. 65 of 2010, Sri Chandram Rajguru vs. Gajendra Prasad Bhatt and others, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants (wherein present petitioner was one of the defendant) directing the defendants not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff/complainant over the property in question; complainant/respondent herein has also lodged an F.I.R. with P.S. Sahaspur District Dehradun registered as Case Crime No. 232 of 2010 under Section 379, 427, 188 IPC against the defendants including the petitioner on 10.11.2010 saying accused including the petitioner have cut, removed and destroyed the crop from the agriculture field of the complainant; suit for permanent prohibitory injunction being O.S. No. 65 of 2010 was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2014 having observed that plaintiff/complainant could not prove his title and possession over the property in question; one revenue suit for declaration under Section 229-B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by the father of the petitioner herein as well as by Gajendra Prasad against the complainant as well as Smt. Pushpa Devi, Rekha Pawar and Neeraj Mittal pertaining to the property in question, which is pending disposal as yet before the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun; after the investigation, Police has filed final report in favour of the accused saying no offence can be said to have been made out against the accused punishable under Sections 379, 427, 188 IPC; against the final report, so submitted by the Police, complainant/respondent no. 2, herein, has filed protest petition; on the protest petition, learned Magistrate was pleased to pass impugned order dated 12.03.2013 summoning the accused and Criminal Revision No. 91 of 2013 arising out of impugned summoning order dated 12.03.2013 was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide judgment dated 23.06.2015, hence, accused/petitioner, herein, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. I have heard Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner, Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State/respondent no. 1 and Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2/complainant and have carefully perused the record.

4. First of all, bare perusal of the impugned summoning order dated 12.03.2013 would reveal that Magistrate has not observed for what offence he has decided to issue process against the accused/petitioner, herein. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

“ Final Report No. 19 of 2011 submitted by the Investigating Officer is hereby rejected; objection stands disposed of accordingly; Office is directed to register this case as State Case and to issue summon against the accused fixing 20.04.2013.”

5. As observed hereinbefore, summoning order does not disclose for what offence learned Magistrate has decided to issue summons.

6. Since, complaint was filed under Section 379, 427 and 188 IPC, therefore, according to Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent no. 2, summon should be deemed to have been issued for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 378, 425 IPC.

7. Sections 188, 378 & 425 IPC are being reproduced herein to appreciate the arguments advanced by Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the complaint/respondent no. 2.

“188. Disobedience to order duly pr