Pradeep vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr

Ram Krishna Gautam, J

This Application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the applicant, Pradeep, with a prayer for setting aside impugned summoning order, dated 29.6.2018, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Saharanpur, as well as order of revisional court, dated 19.10.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharapur, in Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2018, Pradeep vs. State of U.P. and others. Learned counsel for applicant argued that both of the courts below, i.e., Trial court and the Revisional court, have failed to appreciate facts and law placed before them. There was inconsistency in the statements, recorded, under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Applicant is a witness in a murder case, wherein, complainant's husband is an accused. Prior to it alleged occurrence, a criminal case, under Section 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., was also got registered upon a report of the applicant and owing to this previous enmity, this false implication was made and concocted case was got lodged, but, both of the courts below failed to appreciate it. Hence, this Application, invoking jurisdiction of this court of general superintendence over subordinate courts, conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, with above prayer.

Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.

Heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the record.

From very perusal of the complaint, it is apparent that it was filed by Smt. Poonam with this contention that on 6.12.2016, at about 5.00 PM, while she was all alone at her home and her husband, Dhan Prakash, was away at Saharanpur with regard to his labour job, Pradeep, applicant, herein, did criminal trespass in her house. He outraged her modesty by doing obscene act by touching her private parts. When she protested, he assaulted her by hands and feet and also beaten her by leg shots and by the Batt of Tamancha (country made pistol). Her cloths were torn. She sustained injury. Upon rescue call, Keshu, resident of same village and mother of complainant, Smt. Pramod Devi, who came there to meet her, rushed there and saved her with great difficulty. Subsequently, Ram Kumar, Lalit, Sudhir and Hari Ram, family members of accused/Opposite party, also came at the home of the complainant. They assaulted her and extended threat of dire consequences. She was medically examined on 7.12.2016, but her report was not got lodged. Magistrate took cognizance and registered it as a complaint case, wherein, complainant was examined, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and her three witnesses, Smt. Pramod, Smt. Gandadai and Smt. Kuntlesh, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Thenafter, summoning of Pradeep, applicant herein, was ordered by the Magistrate, for offences, punishable, under Sections 323, 452 and 506 of IPC. Against this summoning order, a revision, being Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2018, was filed, which was dismissed.

Statements, recorded, under enquiry made by the Magistrate, are fully intact and alleged contentions of the complaint are very well in it.

At the stage of passing of summoning order, under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., Magistrate is not required to make meticulous analysis of factual evidence, rather, existence of a prima facie case is to be seen by application of judicial mind and in present case, it was very well there. Accordingly, summoning order was passed in accordance with provisions of law.

Revisional court was to see as to whether the Magistrate failed to appreciate facts and, thereby exceeded or mis-exercised his jurisdiction or if there is any apparent error on the face of record and in present case, in the impugned order, there was no such situation because the order was passed on the basis of evidence, collected by the Magistrate, in its enquiry and as such revision was rightly dismissed in accordance with provisions of law.

Hence, in view of what has been discussed above, there was no failure by either of the courts below, warranting interference by this Court, in exercise of power of general superintendence over subordinate courts, conferred upon it, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, this Application merits its dismissal and it stands dismissed as such.