Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64075 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8549 of 2023 Applicant :- Gajendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raksha Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pushpendra Singh Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Raksha Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Pushpendra Singh for opposite party no.2 and Sri P.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed for quashing the order dated 06.10.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Charkhari, District Mahoba as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 757 of 2021 (Smt. Rama alias Rama vs. Gajendra Singh and Ors) U/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharela, District Mahoba. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no.2 had died during the pendency of the present case, therefore, the present application is dismissed as abated so far as the opposite party no.2 is concerned. 4. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint against the applicants and in support of her complaint she examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Section 202 Cr.P.C. of her witnesses. The learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint as well as statements, finding that prima facie case is made out, passed the summoning order dated 06.03.2021 which is under challenge in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicants have been residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate therefore, it is mandatory upon him to conduct enquiry as per Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. which has not been conducted by him therefore, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. It is further contended that after passing the summoning order, the opposite party no.2 did not supply any list of the witness. Therefore, summon cannot be issued unless the list of witnesses is supplied by opposite party no.2. 5. Per contra learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned summoning order as the court below after perusal of the material on record, summoned the applicants. 6. Learned AGA adopted the arguments made by learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 7. After hearing the submissions of the parties from the perusal of the record, it appears that opposite party no.2 in support of his complaint examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and One Ramdeen and Rani Devi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the court below after perusal of the complaint as well as the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. made out his opinion that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. So far as the content of learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Magistrate had not conducted mandatory query as required by section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. is concerned. The Apex Court in the case of Abhijit Pawar vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar (2017) 3 SCC 528 as well as Vijay Dhanuka vs. Najima Mamta (2014)14 SCC 538 has observed that an enquiry as mentioned in Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. is nothing but prima-facie opinion of the Magistrate on the basis of material available on record that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused as required under section 202 Cr.P.C. Therefore, from the perusal of the record, it is clear that Magistrate while passing the impugned order has recorded his satisfaction that on the basis of material available on record, the prima facie case is made out against the applicants to summon them. Therefore above contention made by learned counsel for applicants is misconceived. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicants, the list of witnesses has not been supplied by the opposite party no.2, therefore, summoning order cannot be passed, is also misconceived. The applicants herein challenged the summoning order wherein it is specifically mentioned that the summons will be issued only after filing of list of witnesses and there is nothing on record to show that summons have been issued to applicants without supplying the list of witnesses by opposite party no.2. Even otherwise the summoning order itself would not become invalid, merely because the complainant has not filed the list of witnesses. It is the issuance of summon, in compliance of the summoning order that would be affected by not filing the list of witnesses. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned summoning order and accordingly, the present application is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 C. MANI Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad