Allahabad High Court
Neetu Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And ... on 19 May, 2023
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:35214 Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5000 of 2023 Applicant :- Neetu Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui,Sachin Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants, namely, Vinod Kumar Maurya and Mohit Maurya have sought following reliefs:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside summoning order dated 23.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Court No. 28 Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 60289 of 2022, under Section 506 IPC, Police Station Bazar Khala, District Lucknow as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may also be quashed."
3. Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that applicant no. 1 had lodged an FIR against opposite party no. 2, which was registered as Case Crime No. 44 of 2022 under Sections 498-A 323, & 506 IPC, Police Station Bazar Khala. Being aggrieved with this FIR, as a counter blast, the opposite party no. 2 had registered false and frivolous complaint case against the applicants under Section 506 IPC. The trial court without appreciating the statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of the witnesses 202 Cr.P.C., in correct perspective and without applying its judicious mind, has wrongly summoned the applicants. It is further submitted that no disclosed offence is made out against the applicants.
4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for applicants that no offence as described in the complaint or in the statement of the complainant and witnesses recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or 202 Cr.P.C. is made out against the applicants, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the applicants, as such the summoning order is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by submitting that on the basis of statements of the complainant and witnesses, the applicants have been rightly summoned.
6. Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the applicants while pressing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. submits that the trial court while summoning the applicants 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, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the applicants.
7. 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 applicants. 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 applicants 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 they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
8. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and charge sheet is refused.
9. So far as regard the cognizance and summoning order passed by the learned trial court 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 applicants failed to adduce any evidence which caused prejudiced to them. So, the cognizance and summoning order is perfectly valid and there is no occasion to quash the same.
10. However, it is provided to the applicants to appear before the trial court and if they 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.
11. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.5.2023 Virendra