Allahabad High Court
Rama Kanth @ Chintamani Misra And Others vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 14 August, 2013
Author: Bharat Bhushan
Bench: Bharat Bhushan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Reserved. In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2587 of 2011 Revisionist :- Rama Kanth @ Chintamani Misra And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Apul Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.N.Tiwari,S.N.Tiwari Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan,J.
1. The instant criminal revision is preferred against the order dated 5.5.2011 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 65 of 2011, whereby the revisionists have been summoned to face the trial under Sections 323,504 IPC, P.S. Meja, District Allahabad.
2. The present revision has its genesis in an application said to have been filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the opposite party no. 2, which was treated as complaint by the learned Magistrate and a Complaint Case No. 65 of 2011 was registered against the revisionists in the Court of learned ACJM, Court No. 9, Allahabad.
3. The complainant has alleged that the revisionists are notorious people in the village and are on inimical terms with the family of the complainant who belongs to same village. It is stated in the complaint that on 4.8.2010 at about 7.30 a.m., revisionists armed with lathi and danda attacked the family members of the opposite party no. 2 and threatened to kill them. They also abused the opposite party no. 2 and his family members. Opposite party no. 2 tried to dissuade them but the revisionists attacked him. He managed to escape from their clutches and entered his house raising alarm. On hearing his shouts, people of the vicinity rescued him. He tried to lodge the FIR on the same day at P.S. Meja but of no avail. The complainant also sent information to the DIG, Allahabad through registered post but in vain. Thereafter he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court below which was treated as complaint. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and summoned the revisionists as aforesaid, hence this revision.
4. Heard Sri Gaurav Singh, Advocate holding brief for Sri Apul Misra, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and have perused the material on record.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the learned Magistrate did not apply its mind while summoning them and has also taken a plea that in the said incident no harm was caused to any person or to any property and their alleged act is protected under Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the present criminal prosecution is nothing but has been instituted with an oblique motive just to harass the revisionists for the purpose of wrecking vengeance.
6. To the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA have defended the order of the learned Magistrate and submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned summoning order by the court below.
7. It is further submitted that the scope of criminal revision is very limited under Section 397 Cr.P.C. as it imposes some limitations for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Superior courts can only examine the correctness, legality, propriety and jurisdictional error of any findings, sentence or order, passed by the inferior courts. It cannot substitute its own findings in place of findings of the subordinate courts.
8. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, it will be beyond power and jurisdiction of superior courts to re-assess the evidence. Appraisal of the evidence is not permissible in revision. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Kerala Vs. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri", AIR 1999 SC 981", has held that the High Courts while hearing revision do not work as a Appellate Court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done.
9. Further, It is settled legal position that that at the initial stage of summoning order, only a prima facie case has to be seen and not whether the evidence as adduced will result in conviction of the accused persons.
10. So far as the question of offence being trivial in nature and applicability of Section 95 I. P. C. is concerned, I do not think that the learned Magistrate has committed any illegality, impropriety or anything wrong in the appreciation of the material before it and in summoning the revisionists.
Section 95, I.P.C. runs as follows:
Section 95:- Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
11. Section 95 is intended to prevent penalisation of negligible wrongs or of offences of trivial character. Whether an act is trivial would undoubtedly depend upon the nature of the injury, the knowledge or intention with which the offending act is done, and other related circumstances, which cannot be looked at this initial stage as the same is a matter of trial. There can be no absolute standard of offending acts which may be regarded as so small or insignificant that a person of ordinary prudence and temper would not complain of such acts.
12. In Veeda Menezes vs. Yusuf Khan (AIR 1966 SC 1773) a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the object of framing the Section 95 IPC was to exclude from the operation of the Indian Penal Code those cases which from the imperfection of language may fall within the letter of the law but are not within its spirit and are considered, and for the most part dealt with by the courts, as innocent.
13. Viewed in the light of the above principles, I am of the opinion that Section 95 IPC has no manner of application to the allegations made in the complaint. Prima face on perusal of the complaint shows that the revisionists armed with lathi and danda allegedly attacked the opposite party no. 2 and his family members with intention to cause serious harm.
14. Therefore, Section 95, I.P.C. would certainly be not applicable to a case like this. If a person was attacked in an aggressive manner as alleged in the present case then the victim has a right to invoke the jurisdiction of courts.
15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any error of law or perversity in the impugned order. The Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
Office is directed to inform the Trial Court about the order within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 14.8.2013 RavindraKSingh