Allahabad High Court
Rajvir Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 February, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2557 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajvir Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. Arti Agarwal, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Rajvir Singh and Pooja Singh with the prayer to quash/set aside the impugned summoning order dated 30.03.2022 as well as entire proceedings passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi at Sambhal in Criminal Case No. 1241 of 2021 (Ravindrapal Singh Vs. Rajvir Singh and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC, P.S. Baniyather, District Sambhal, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi, Sambhal and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the said case, during the pendency of the present application.
The facts arising in the present case are that the opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the ACJM, Sambhal at Chandausi on 20.12.2021 with the prayer that appropriate direction be issued to the concerned police station to lodge the First Information Report and investigate the same. On the said application, the court concerned vide order dated 23.12.2021 directed the same to be registered as a complaint and ordered for recording of the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant. The statement of the complainant/opposite party No.2 was then recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 03.03.2022. Further, the statement of his witnesses namely Rakesh Kumar and Salig Ram were recorded as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively on 07.03.2022. The court concerned vide its order dated 03.03.2022 summoned the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC to face trial. The same is impugned herein along with the proceedings of the said case.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the order summoning the applicants is bad in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the applicants are resident of District Gautam Budh Nagar whereas the opposite party no.2/complainant is a resident of District Sambhal and as such as per Section 202 Cr.P.C. it is mandatory for the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing process since the applicants were residing at a place beyond his jurisdiction. It is argued that the said intention of the legislation is only because of the reason that false and frivolous complaint against persons residing at different places as that of the complainant, would not be considered like in other cases to save them unnecessary harassment.
Learned counsel further argues that this argument is also considered and upheld in a case by another Bench of this Court in the case of Mahboob and others Vs. State of U.P. and another : Crl. Misc. Application 482 No. 950 of 2011 (decided on 20.12.2016). It is argued that the Court has held that the Magistrate has not conducted any enquiry to satisfy himself that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and as such the petition be allowed and the prayers as made be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records along with the judgment in the case of Mahboob and others (supra) which has been produced before the Court, it is apparent that in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which is annexure 2 to the affidavit, the applicant no.1 has been arrayed as an accused no.1 therein, the applicant no.2 has been arrayed as an accused no.2 therein and at serial no.3 there is reference of one other unknown person as an accused. The perusal of the description of the accused persons therein goes to show that the accused no.1 and 2 are stated to be resident of House No. 12, Jyotikiran Society near Advocate Society, Sector Pai I-II, Greater Noida, Police Station Beeta-2, Gautam Budh Nagar, and also residents of Aata, P.S. Baniyather, District Sambhal.
From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that although the said accused persons are said to be residents of Gautam Budh Nagar but are also stated to be residents of Police Station Baniyather, District Sambhal.
In view of the same, it cannot be said that the accused are residents of another place not falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned. Since the accused persons are stated to be residents of Police Station Baniyather, District Sambhal also, the Magistrate concerned was a well within his jurisdiction to summon them. The sole argument raised in the present petition was to the said effect only for which learned counsel has placed the judgment also. The situation as in the present case is thus different. From the arguments as raised and the judgment as supplied as the accused persons/applicants are said to be a residents of Police Station Baniyather, District Sambhal also and as such the arguments as stated, does not hold good.
The present petition thus is rejected.
Order Date :- 3.2.2023 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)