JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated August 12, 1984 summoning the applicants to stand trial for offences under Sections 375/376/323/504/506, I.P.C. 2. The main ground of attack is that although according to complaint, lodged by Smt. Parmaeshwari Devi, opposite party No. 2, the eye-witnesses of the offence consisted, besides herself, of her husband Brij Nath and Om Prakash, of whom she and her husband as well as Brij Nath bad been given beating by the applicant, only the complainant and two witnesses Brij Nath sad Om Prakash were examined under Section 202, Cr. P.C. one Sri Ram was also examined-through not named in the complaint. 3. Learned counsel tor the applicants says that under the Proviso to Section 202(2), Cr P.C., it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to call upon the complainant to produce all her witnesses and also examine them on path. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Babu Ram and Another v. State of U.P., 1978 Alld. Criminal Cases 260 for the proposition that in the event of failure of the Magistrate to examine all the witnesses of the complainant, the order summoning the accused was not proper. 4. This is a short matter on which learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 5. The point raised by the learned counsel for applicants is quite obvious and patent from the provisions of the statute itself as supported by the aforesaid decision of this court. It was absolutely necessary for the complainant to produce her husband as witness under Section 202, Cr. P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has also said of which there is also some indication in the revisional order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich that one complainant had submitted a list of 7 witnesses, so that omission to examine was not only in respect of her husband but also two other witnesses. It is, however, not very clear whether this list of witnesses had been submitted to the Magistrate before the statements, under Section 202, Cr. P.C. had been taken. Ordinarily the list of witnesses has to be submitted after the issue of process, under Section 204(2), Cr. P.C. but if the list of 7 witnesses had been submitted before the court for statements under Sections 202, Cr. P.C. had been taken. Ordinarily the list of witnesses has to be submitted after the issue of process, under Section 204(2), Cr. P.C. but if the list of 7 witnesses had been submitted before the court for statements under Sections 202, Cr. P.C. the provisions of the Proviso to Section 202(2), Cr. P.C. would be applicable equally to these witnesses as well. 7. In the result, the summoning order dated August 21, 1984, contained in Annexure 2, and the revisional order dated September 23, 1985 contained in Annexure 3 to this petition, are set aside. 8. The Magistrate concerned is directed to proceed with the case after compliance of the provisions of Section 202, Cr. P.C. by examining all the witnesses of the complainant and then determine whether or not to summon the accused.