K.S. Sidhu, J.
1. Mr. Dave on behalf of P N. Vijay, respondent 2 herein, has filed a cavaet and has entered appearance today in accord ance with the caveat.
2. The petitioners' grievance in the present application 482 Cr. P.G, in ultimate analysis, is against the order dated April 7, 1980, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bharatpur took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC in respest of the petitioners on police report filed before him in accordance with Section 173 Cr P.G. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners application for revision from the aforementioned order was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated, August 30,1980.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out what he described as certain glaring illeglities in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the order of affirmance passed by the learned Sessions Judge. No useful purpose will be served by going into all these matters in this case. The petitioners' grievance can, in my opinion, be redressed even on the assumption that the impuged order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance is correct. I am passing the following order with the consent of the parties for compliance by the learned Magistrate :
(i) The petitioners shall enter personal appearance in the court of Judicial Magistrate Bbaratpur on September 22,1980.
(ii) The petitioners shall be released by the learned Magistrate on their respectively executing recognizance in the ancount of Rs. 10,000/ for their appearance in the court of lea rned Magistrate on future date or dates of hearing.
(iii) The learned Magistrate shall hear arguments of the parties on September 22,1980, itself, as to the question whether or not there is material enough on the record to justify the framing of the charge against the petitioners.
(iv) If for one reason or the other the learned Magistrate is not able to hear the arguments and decide the question of charge that day, it will be open to the petitioners to make an application to the learned Magistrate seeking exemption from personal appearance in the court on the adjourned date or dates of hearings. Such application shall be decided by the learned Magistrate acccrding to law.
(v) Needless to say that the learned Magistrate will not be influenced by any observation of this Court or of the learned Sessions Judge while deciding for himself as to whether or not the case is deserving of the framing of charge.
(vi) The operation of the warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate againt the petitioners is stayed till September 22,1980 and is shall be deemed to be cancelled that day in the event of the appearance of the petitioners in the court of the learned Magistrate.
4. The application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is disposed of accord.