JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arvind K. Tripathi, J.—This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the further proceeding of complaint case No. 3101/07 pending in the Court of M.M.III, Court No. 3, Santosh Kumar Pandey v. Ram Sanehi and others. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the complaint was lodged in which the applicant Nos. 1and 2 were summoned by impugned order dated 8.7.08 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 435, I.P.C. Nerval Kanpur. Thereafter the revision was preferred and without hearing the applicants the revisional Court allowed the revision by impugned order dated 25.2.09 on the ground that the allegation was against all the accused persons. However, on the basis of same evidence only two persons i.e. applicant Nos.1 & 2 were summoned. The order dated 8.7.08 was challenged and the matter was remanded without hearing of the applicants. Thereafter the Magistrate by order dated 12.2.09 summoned all the applicants by a cryptic order without considering the evidence on record, whether the offence was made against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 435, I.P.C. though in the earlier order it was mentioned that there was specific allegation against the applicant Nos.1 and 2 who have slapped the complainant and tried to press the neck. 4. From a perusal of the record it appears that the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were summoned by order dated 8.7.09, hence the revision was not filed against the applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Since no summon was issued against the applicant Nos. 3 to 10 hence it appears that prima facie no offence was disclosed in view of the evidence for summoning the applicant nos.3 to 10. However, they were neither in the party before the revisional Court nor any notice was issued to them. The observation was made that since there were identical evidence, hence the same order was required to be passed against all the applicants. The observation of the revisional Court shows that there was no option before the trial Court to consider the material independently and the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar without considering the evidence summoned the applicants. The observation was made that since there were identical evidence, hence the same order was required to be passed against all the applicants. The observation of the revisional Court shows that there was no option before the trial Court to consider the material independently and the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar without considering the evidence summoned the applicants. Since the applicants were not parties in the revision and they have no information regarding order dated 25.2.09 passed by the revisional Court hence according to the applicants the order could not be challenged earlier and without considering the fact and circumstances of the case the summoning order was issued on 22.2.09. 5. Since the order of revisional Court was ex-parte and if the notices are issued to the opposite party No. 2 the matter will be further delayed. 6. However, in view of the fact that the ex-parte order dated 22.2.08 was passed by the revisional Court and consequential order dated 8.7.08 by Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar are hereby set aside. The revisional Court is directed to consider the revision afresh in accordance with law. 7. So far as the applicant Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, there is no revision against them, hence the present application in respect of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is rejected. 8. However, in respect of the applicant Nos. 3 to 10 the present application is allowed. 9. However, it is provided that if applicants No.1 and 2 appear and surrender before the Court below and move an application for bail within thirty days from today, then the same shall be considered expeditiously in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 390 and affirmed by Hon. Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(2) Crimes 4 (SC) after affording the opportunity to the public prosecutor. 10. With the aforesaid observation this application is finally disposed off. ———