JUDGMENT Manoj Misra,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that according to the allegations the father of the complainant was not happy with the marriage of the complainant with Fazil. It has been submitted that complaint has been filed before the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas Act), Budaun, who has taken cognizance and has proceeded to summon the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 392, 342, 323, 504, 506 and 363 I.P.C. 3. It has been submitted that an offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. is not made out inasmuch as hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of wrongful restraint, has not been caused to carry away the property allegedly obtained by theft. It has also been submitted that from the allegations as well as the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., an offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. is also not made out. It has, thus, been submitted that since the court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas Act), Badaun is not the competent court to take cognizance and to proceed with the matter inasmuch as all the other offences are triable by a Court of Magistrate, the order summoning the applicants is without jurisdiction. 4. The matter requires consideration. 5. Issue notice to the opposite party No.2 returnable within four weeks. 6. List this application for order before appropriate Court in the week commencing 07.04.2014, by which date, the opposite parties may file their respective counter-affidavit. 7. Till the next date of listing, the further proceedings in S.S.T No. 255 of 2013 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas Act, Badaun, under Sections 392, 342, 323, 504, 506, 363 I.P.C., shall remain stayed.