Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar Asstt. Teacher vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2835 of 2008 Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Asstt. Teacher Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmenra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Case taken up in the revised call. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. are present. None has put appearance for O.P. No. 2 although notice has been served on her.
This criminal revision has been filed against the summoning order dated 26.9.2008 passed by C.J.M. Hathras in Complaint Case No. 1744 of 2007.
The O.P. No. 2 filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the applicant is posed as Anganwari activist while O.P. No. 2 Arvind Kumar is posted as Assistant Teacher at Basai school and he is supervisor of Pulse Polio campaign. He prevents the applicant from discharge of duties of Pulse Polio campaign and used castiest remarks against her and also threatened to get her suspended. Despite her refusal the O.P. No. 2 engaged her in Pulse Polio campaign at village Nauzalpur. On 26.5.2007 when the applicant went there to administer Polio drops then the opposite party teasing her, used indecent language and also threatened her. The application was treated as complaint. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. and by the impugned order has summoned the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that revisionist is Assistant Teacher and has been falsely implicated as he was supervisor of Pulse Polio campaign and has the responsibility to engage the employees on duty. The O.P. No. 2 was not willing to do the duty in the Pulse Polio Campaign and due to this on fake and fabricated version she has filed the present complaint. It is also contended that statement of O.P. No. 2 was recorded on 21.8.2008 in which she has not named the revisionist. To the contrary one Satpal was nominated. Another application was also given to S.H.O. on 26.5.2007 and in which no active role was attributed to the revisionist. Prior to this a fake occurrence of 26.5.2007 was also created in which she nominated Satpal. It is also contended that there was no Pulse Polio Programme on 26.5.2007 at village Nauzalpur as alleged in the complaint. The revisionist was at P.H.C. Hasayan on 26.5.2007. A police report was also called which completely denies the prosecution story. There is no medical report to corroborate the prosecution case which is absolutely false. The learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner has passed the impugned order which is not sustainable.
Learned A.G.A. contended that the learned Magistrate on the basis of statement of complainant and her witnesses has passed the summoning order, hence, there is no illegality in the summoning order.
The allegations of the complaint and the material on record transpires that dispute between the parties is related to service. The revisionist is Assistant Teacher and Supervisor of Pulse Polio Programme and has been entrusted the liability to take work from the employees including the O.P. No. 2. It also appears that O.P. No. 2 was engaged on duty for Pulse Polio Programme and she was not willing for it. So just to harass and pressurize the revisionist an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved. Proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of the court.
It is also settled law that summoning a person for criminal trial is a serious thing and the Magistrate should exercise this power with utmost care and caution and not in a mechanical manner. The learned Magistrate will passing the summoning order has failed to appreciate the entire facts and circumstances of the case and has passed the impugned summoning order in a cursory and casual manner. The same is liable to be set-aside. It also appears that O.P. No. 2 has lost interest in the case because of which she has not appeared before this Court.
The revision is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside.
Order Date :- 21.3.2023 Masarrat