JUDGMENT
R.N. Misra, J.
1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant for quashing the order dated 16.4.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in criminal case No. 493 of 2006, by which the applicants have been summoned for trial for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kotwali, district Ghazipur.
2. I. have heard Shri Rajendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the file.
3. The main point argued in this case by the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the magistrate treated the application under Section 156(3) as complaint and proceeded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and according to him that procedure was illegal because the said application cannot be treated as complaint. He has cited the case of Braham Singh Saini v. State of U.P. 2007 (1) JIC 244, in which Hon. Vinod Prasad, J of this High Court has taken a view that such application cannot be treated as complaint. He has also cited the case of Masuman v. State of U.P. and Anr. ALJ 2001 (1) 221, in which the same Hon’ble Judge has taken the same view. But the legal position to my mind is different. In the case of Shiv Narain Jaiswal and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. 2007 (1) JIC 44, Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J. of this High Court has also taken a different view. In the case of Joseph Mathuri @ Vishveshwarananda and Anr v. Swami Sachidanand Harisakshi and Anr. 2001 (3) Crimes 384 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has also taken a contrary view. In criminal misc. application No. 7484 of 2004 Mohan Shukla and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. Hon. Amar Saran, J. has also taken view that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C can be treated as complaint. In Criminal Revision No. 1667 of 2006 Chandrika Singh v. State of U.P. Hon. Shiv Charan, J. has sought to distinguish the case of Suresh Chand Jain v. State of MP, JT 2001 (2) SC page 81. The Full Court decision in the case of Ram BaJbu Gupta v. State of U.P. and Ors 2001 (43) ACC 50 has also clarified the matter and it is evident that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint. Thus, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surajmal v. State 1995(2) JIC 1523 does not lay down the correct law. The decision taken by Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J. in the Masnman’s case has been referred to the larger Bench by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Rastogi in criminal Misc. Application No. 9297 of 2007, Sukhwasi v. State of U.P. 2007 (5) ADJ, 560.
4. In view of: above legal positions, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has exercised the correct option by (sic) treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and made suitable inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and found a prima facie case against the applicant and summoned them for trial. No illegality in the order-appears.
5. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.