JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The present C482 Application has been preferred by the applicants, as against the impugned order dated 16th September 2022, which was passed by the Court of 3rd Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Complaint Case No. 2411 of 2022, Poonam Sharma Saggar vs. Anuj Saggar and Others, whereby it is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that applicant No. 1, he has been summoned by the impugned order for being tried for the offences under Sections 498A, 354A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas on the other hand, the applicant No. 2 has been summoned to be tried for the offences under Section 498A, 406, 324 504 and 506 of IPC, as well as Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The limited question, which has to be answered as argued, by this Court is, that as to whether the challenge which has been given to the impugned order dated 16th September 2022 is the “cognizance” order or the “summoning” order? Because, this Court, at this stage, is not called upon to appreciate the factual arguments, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the applicants, justifying his challenge given to cognizance order dated 16th September 2022, is as if it’s a summoning order on the various grounds, that the institution of the complaint case as it happens to be as a consequence of a counterblast to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was got registered by the husband of respondent No. 2 herein, as Case No. 540 of 2019, Anuj Saggar vs. Smt. Poonam Sharma, as it was filed on 22.10.2019.

3. In order to answer the aforesaid limited question, the relevant part of the cognizance order is extracted hereunder:

^^vkns'k

vfHk;qDrx.k vuqt lXxj ,oa lquhrk lXxj dks varxZr /kkjk 498,] 406] 323] 504] 506 HkkŒnaŒlŒ o /kkjk 3@4 ngst Áfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr rFkk vfHk;qDr ;ksxs'k lXxj dks 498, 354, HkkŒnaŒlaŒ o /kkjk 3@4 Áfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr ds vijk/k ds fopkj.k gsrq vkgwr fd;k tkrk gSA ifjokfnuh dh vksj ls lwph xokgku nkf[ky djus ds mijkar mijksDr vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) leu tkjh fd;s tk,A ifjokfnuh vko';d iSjoh vanj lIrkg lqfuf'pr djsA

i=koyh okLrs mifLFkfr vfHk;qDrx.k fnukad 10-10-2022 dks is'k gksA**

4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits, that where and when the Court has used the words, that the applicants are being summoned, for determination of the charges, in fact, it is interpreted by him that it is a summoning. But for the reason being, that the impugned judgment dated 16th September 2022, has been followed by the subsequent words, which provide that the complainant had been thereby also directed to supply the list of witnesses, on which she wants to rely and it has been observed that it's only thereafter submission of the list of witnesses, the accused persons would be summoned, which is very clear in its term, by the words used, which has been extracted hereinabove. That summons for calling of the accused will only be issued, after supply of the list of witnesses by the complainant.

5. In fact, the learned counsel for the applicants, is reading the impugned judgment dated 16th September 2022, as if it is the “summoning order.” This will not be justified, for the reason being, that after conclusion of the said direction, of directing the complainant to supply the list of witnesses, on which she wants to place reliance, it has been even subsequently directed by the Court of 3rd Chief Judicial Magistrate, that the complainant would take appropriate steps and here, the appropriate steps would be in relation to supplying the list of witnesses, on which she wants to place reliance in support of the complaint it was thereafter that the order provided to take action for summoning the accused.

6. In fact, it is only after complying of the aforesaid conditions by the complainant, then only the summoning order would be issued. The impugned “cognizance order” dated 16th September 2022, has been wrongly interpreted by the applicants