Allahabad High Court
Prem Narain Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 July, 2020
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 40 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1729 of 2020 Petitioner :- Prem Narain Chaudhary Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.G.A. for State.
This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging summoning order dated 6.7.2018, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), F.T.C., Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 118 of 2018 (Arvind Kumar Gaur Vs. Prem Narain Chaudhary), under Sections 418, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Phase-3, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar and also order dated 17.1.2020, passed by District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 69 of 2019 (Prem Narain Vs. State and Others) dismissing aforesaid criminal revision arising out of summoning order dated 6.7.2018. Petitioners have also challenged the entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case.
From perusal of record, it transpires that an agreement was entered into between parties, copy of which is on record as Annexure-1 to the affidavit. It may be noted here that the said agreement is an unregistered document. Subsequent to the above agreement, some dispute arose between the parties, on account of which opposite party No.2 filed a complaint. The concerned Magistrate proceeded with the complaint and took the statements of complainant and his witnesses in terms of Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Upon evaluation of the allegations made in complaint in the light of deposition of complainant and his witnesses, the Magistrate recorded his prima facie satisfaction and accordingly summoned the applicants vide summoning order dated 6.7.2018. This summoning order was challenged by applicant by filing Criminal Revision No. 69 of 2019 (Prem Narain Vs. State and Others). The Revisional Court, upon evaluation of summoning order in the light of material on record, dismissed the criminal revision vide order dated 17.1.2020. Thus, feeling aggrieved by orders dated 17.1.2020 and 6.7.2020 as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case, petitioner has now approached this Court by means of present petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for petitioner has invited the attention of Court to the allegations made in complaint and on the basis thereof, he submits that no offence under Section 418 IPC is made out. Admittedly, offence alleged against the petitioner, carries punishment of three years and therefore, the case pending before Court below is a warrant trial case. The deposition of complainant and his witnesses as recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., cannot be treated as evidence in terms of Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act. Thus the submission urged by learned counsel for petitioner can be evaluated only when deposition of witnesses is recorded in terms of Section 244 Cr.P.C.
In view of above, the submission urged by learned counsel for applicant is wholly misconceived at this stage. Consequently present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is observed that in case petitioner appears before Court below and applies for bail within a period of one month, the court below shall decide the bail application of the petitioner expeditiously in the light of the observation made by this Court in the case of Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151. "
Order Date :- 7.7.2020 Arshad