Allahabad High Court
Bahori Lal Sharma And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 July, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15188 of 2022 Applicant :- Bahori Lal Sharma And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned AGA for State.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 11.1.2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Court No.3, Bulandshahar in Complaint Case No.281 of 2018 (Shakuntala vs. Bahori Lal Sharma and others) under Section 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Police Station Narora, District Bulandshaher as well as entire proceeding of aforesaid complaint case, now pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrtate Ist, Court No.3, Bulandshahar.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 6.6.2014, an FIR dated 2.9.2014 was lodged by the first informant/complainant-opposite party no.2 which was registered as Case Crime No.237 of 2014 under Section 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Police Station Narora, district Bulandshahar. In the aforesaid FIR, five persons namely Bahori Lal, Gaurav Sharma, Dheer Kumar, Yogesh Kumar and Karan Kumar have been nominated as main accused.
After registration of aforementioned FIR, Investigating Officer proceeded with the statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C.. On the basis of material collected by him during course of investigation, Investigating Officer opened that no offence as alleged is made out. He accordingly, submitted the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. final report dated 29.1.2015.
After submission of aforesaid final report, first informant/opposite party no.2 filed protest petition against the aforesaid final report. The said protest petition came to be allowed by court concerned vide order dated 19.1.2022 whereby the protest petition was treated as a complaint. Accordingly, concerned Magistrate proceeded with the complaint in terms of Section 200/202 Cr.P.C.
Having recorded the statements of the complainant and that of the witnesses in terms of Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C., concerned Magistrate examined the veracity of the allegations made in the protest petition. Having recorded his prima facie satisfaction upon the same, concerned Magistrate summoned the applicants by means of summoning order dated 11.1.2019.
Feeling aggrieved by above, applicants who have been summoned by court below have now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned summoning order passed by court below is manifestly illegal inasmuch as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Court No.3, Bulandshahar has no jurisdiction to summon the applicants for an offence under Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act. It is only the designated court which can summon the applicants.
In support of above, reliance is placed upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge rendered in Soni Devi vs. State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC Online 201. It is thus argued that impugned summoning oder passed by court below being illegal and without jurisdiction is liable to be quashed by this Court Per contra, the learned AGA for State has opposed this application. He contends that after the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction in terms of Section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. After examining the police report and the papers accompanying the police report, concerned Magistrate may accept the police report or reject the same, as the case may be. However, once the Magistrate finds that there is no evidence against the applicant in the papers accompanying the police report then in that event Magistrate concerned has no option but to proceed with the protest petition as a complaint. After the summoning order has been passed by the court concerned it may commit the same to the designated court. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the order impugned is bad for want of jurisdiction.On the aforesaid premiere learned AGA submits that judgment relied upon by learned counsel for applicant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The present application is therefore liable to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material on record this Court finds merit in the submission of learned AGA.
In view of above, application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.7.2022 Deepika