Saurabh Kumar Mishra vs The State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. By means of this application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 05.06.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2013 preferred by the applicant before the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, whereby the revision preferred by the applicant was dismissed.

It transpires from the perusal of the record that an application u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the complainant, that is opposite party No. 2 which was treated as complaint and evidence u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was adduced on behalf of the complainant. The Magistrate, after going through the evidence summoned the accused person (applicant) to face trial for the offence u/s 323, 392, 504, 506 IPC. Feeling aggrieved thereby criminal revision was preferred by the applicant which was dismissed. Hence, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. By means of this application, u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has challenged the order passed in revision filed by him before the Court of Sessions. Section 397(3) clearly bars the second revision by the same party. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the revisional court has passed the detailed order considering all the aspects of the matter and also considering several case laws as has been mentioned by him in the judgment. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity.

Enmity is always a double edged weapon. While on one hand, it may be a ground for false implication, on the other hand, it may work as motive for the accused persons to commit the offence, even otherwise it is a question of fact that cannot be determined at this stage.

At the stage of summoning the Magistrate is not required to evaluate the evidence from the point of view that the conviction of the accused persons is possible or not. At this stage the Magistrate has to satisfy himself only on the point whether there exist sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons or not.

In the facts of this case, prima facie case for the aforesaid sections was made out against the applicant and therefore the order of summoning cannot, in any manner, be said to be illegal and the revision preferred by the applicant against the said order has already been dismissed. In view of the discussions made above, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order at this stage. The application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.