Per contra, learned AGA submits that the complainant/opposite party no.2 has named herself as a witness of the incident in the complaint and, therefore it cannot be said that no list of witnesses has been furnished. In this regard, it is submitted that it is not necessary to furnish a separate list of witnesses and the complainant/opposite party no.2 having been named as a witness in the complaint itself, the same is sufficient compliance of the provisions prescribed under Section 204(2) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as the said provision under Section 204(2) Cr.P.C., regarding furnishing of a list of witnesses before issue of process to the accused is only a matter of procedure, the same is not mandatory and the same can be complied before commencement of the trial, to avoid any prejudice to the accused persons. Even otherwise, the applicants have already given up their claim as the summoning order of the year 2015 is being challenged after a laps of about 7 years and after being released on bail. As regards the other contentions that the offence under the relevant sections has not made out, perusal of the FIR itself goes to show that the applicants after using abusive language entered into the house of the opposite party no.2 and assaulted the opposite party no.2 and her family members with kicks, fists, lathi and danda, due to which they sustained injuries. They also threatened her to leave the house or to face dire consequences. Thus, the allegations are prima facie made out. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court.
