Allahabad High Court
Meena Devi @ Muni Devi And Others vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 26 May, 2023
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37635 Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5354 of 2023 Applicant :- Meena Devi @ Muni Devi And Others Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 20.9.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, District- Sultanpur in criminal revision no. 83/2018 (Ramesh Chandra Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) and prayed to quash the summoning order dated 6.01.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Court No. 19, District- Sultanpur in complaint criminal case no 41/2017 (Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs. Ramesh Chandra Mishra and others) as well as entire proceedings of the complainant criminal case no. 41/2017.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants has been falsely implicated in the present case. One case has been lodged by the applicant no. 2- Ramesh Chandra Mishra against the opposite party no. 2 and his 15 associates as case crime no. 867 of 2016 on 14.10.2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 352, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Sangrampur, District- Amethi in which the date of the incident has been mentioned as 2.10.2016. Thereafter as a counter blast, a complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 11.1.2017 in which date of incident has been mentioned as 14.10.2016 and time was mentioned as 8:30 a.m. in which on the basis of the statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded u/s 200 and 202 CrPC respectively, summoning order was passed on 6.1.2018 against the applicants without applying judicial mind.The whole story as narrated in the statement of the witnesses has been cooked and manufactured, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the applicants, as such the orders are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants have earlier approached before this Court by filing U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1408 of 2018, which was disposed of by this Court on 16.3.2018 with a direction to the applicants to appear and surrender before the trial court and the trial court was directed to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P
4. Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing the present petition submits that the trial court while summoning the petitioner has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the trial court without dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touch stone of probability should not summon accused person to face criminal trial. It is further submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration the material placed before the trial court and, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the petitioners.
5. So far as quashing of entire proceedings is concerned, from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submission made relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners have got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
6. So far as the summoning order passed by the learned trial court is concerned, at the stage of taking cognizance, trial court can simply form an opinion as to whether the case is fit for taking and committing the matter for trial or not. In the present case, learned trial court clearly expressed his opinion that he perused all the record and clearly indicated that the material placed before him is sufficient to proceed the case. Thus, the cognizance order is not a proforma order. Every aspect is touched by learned trial court and petitioner failed to adduce any evidence which caused prejudiced to him. So, the cognizance and summoning order is perfectly valid and there is no occasion to quash the same.
7. The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as impugned proceedings is refused. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, rejected.
8. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants/petitioners appear before the trial court and apply for bail, then their bail application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law propounded by the Apex Court.
Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Anuj Singh