Allahabad High Court
Jugendra Singh & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 6 July, 2010
Author: Arvind Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Arvind Kumar Tripathi
Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2973 of 2003 Petitioner :- Jugendra Singh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- G.R.S. 'Pal' Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,V. Singh Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
No one is present except learned A.G.A.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against summoning order dated 18.7.2003 passed by Special Judge, Dacoity Budaun in S.S.T. No. 66 of 2003, under Section 395, 397 IPC, P.S. Gunnour, District Budaun on the complaint dated 10.7.2002 registered as Criminal Case No. 37 of 2002.
On 2Ist October, 2003 a notice was issued and proceeding in complaint case was stayed. The interim order was till the next date of listing i.e. 18th December, 2003. Thereafter the interim order was extended on 22nd April, 2004 and 29th April, 2004, thereafter the case was listed on 29.11.2004 and 5.5.2010 however, the interim order was not extended. On 5th May, 2010 three weeks and no more time was allowed for filing rejoinder affidavit however, till date no rejoinder affidavit has been filed as per office report dated 5.7.2010.
The case of the applicant is that a non cognizable report was filed on behalf of the opposite party/complainant. There was no allegation of looting of household goods and the correct fact might come into light during investigation in that report. Application was also moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was rejected. When non cognizable report was made, then on the report of the police, the parties were challaned under Section 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. It has further been stated on behalf of the applicant that in counter blast of the proceeding initiated under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C., the complaint has been filed hence the same is not maintainable. If the complaint is not maintainable, then summoning of the applicant is liable to be quashed.
The case of the complainant was that when the report was lodged by the applicant, it was not correctly noted by the police, the complaint was also made to Superintendent of Police and application was also moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. However since no correct report was lodged hence ultimately complaint was filed. There was allegation that the applicants entered into the house, abused and assaulted the complainant and his wife, and then also looted household goods.
The aforesaid version in the complaint was supported by statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in the non cognizable report. In view of the facts and circumstances, if prima facie evidence is disclosed after perusal of the complaint and statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and the trial court is satisfied that prima facie offence was disclosed, then there is no illegality in summoning order. As far as non cognizable report is concerned, if the matter was investigated, then application might have been moved under Section 210 Cr.P.C. for stay of the proceeding during investigation and in the complaint case, court was required to wait for the result of the investigation.
In view of the above discussion, facts and circumstances, at this stage no interference is required. Whether the defence case is correct or not, it has to be examined by the trial court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly the present revision is hereby rejected and the interim order dated 21Ist October, 2003 is hereby discharged.
Office to communicate this order to the court concerned.
Order Date :- 6.7.2010 prabhat