High CourtsSingle Bench(2000) 04 AHC CK 0147

Latoor Singh vs Kiran Pal and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 13 April 2000 · Citation: (2001) 1 ACR 251

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.C. Mishra, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 890 of 1984

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 345 words

J.C. Mishra, J.—This revision has been filed against the order dated 28.3.1984, passed by Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr allowing the appeal quashing the summoning order in complaint case.

2.

Despite the list being revised, none appeared for the revisionist. After death of Sri B. P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the revisionist a notice was sent to the revisionist to engage another counsel but he failed to avail this opportunity and none appeared for the revisionist.

3.

Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned Counsel for the opposite party.

4.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge referred to the statement of the complainant and Smt. Chameli and concluded that had the Magistrate gone through the statement of the witnesses he would have realised that the complaint was false. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the presence of the witnesses unreliable as no attempt was made by them to extinguish the fire. He was of the view that if the witnesses were actually present they could have controlled the fire then and there. He observed that this complaint was filed by the complainant to save his skin from the prosecution as the police had lodged report against him u/s 182, I.P.C.

5.

The learned Counsel for the opposite party supported the conclusions drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed illegality in holding that the complaint version was false. It was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate has only to satisfy from the material before him if there is ground for proceeding, neither the Magistrate nor the revisional court has power to meticulously analyse the evidence and to draw conclusion whether the version is false or correct. In my opinion the presence of the witnesses could not be disbelieved, merely on the ground that the fire could not be controlled.

6.

The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.3.1984, passed by Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr is quashed. The learned Judge is directed to dispose of criminal revision afresh in accordance with law.