Allahabad High Court
Brahma Deo Singh And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 May, 2022
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12292 of 2022 Applicant :- Brahma Deo Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kalp Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
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.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 18.10.2021 in complaint case No. 3283 of 2020 and order dated 4.4.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhadohi in Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 427 and 379 I.P.C. Police Station- Gopiganj, District- Bhadohi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant no. 1 lodged the F.I.R. against the opposite party no. 2 and other companion under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. as case crime no. 99 of 2020 in which the date of incident is 1.5.2020, Police Station- Gopiganj, District- Bhadohi. Being aggrieved with this F.I.R. false and frivolous application was moved by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which has been treated as complaint case. Only exert pressure and as a counter blast application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 11.6.2020 by the opposite party no. 2 before the C.J.M., Bhadohi in which the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as complaint case. The statement of the opposite party no. 2 and the witnesses has been recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Summoning order was passed under Section 147, 323, 504, 427, 379 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that being aggrieved within this summoning order the applicant approached before the Sessions Court by way of revision and the revisional court affirmed the summoning order and rejected the revision. Being aggrieved this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no grievous injury on the body of the injured. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the whole prosecution is nothing but an process of law.
Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing the present petition submits that the court below 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 court below 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 court below has not taken into consideration the material placed before the trial court and, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the petitioners.
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.
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.
The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as impugned proceedings is refused.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants/petitioners appear before the court below and apply for bail, then their bail application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law propounded by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021. In this case Hon'ble the Apex Court has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific directions need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.
Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.5.2022 Anuj Singh