Allahabad High Court
Ranvir vs State Of U.P. on 9 July, 2012
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1756 of 2010
Petitioner :- Ranvir
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2010 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah in Complaint Case No. 57 of 2009 ( Ranvir Vs. Ajay Pal and others), whereby the complaint of the revisionist has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Judge at the time of issuing of process has meticulously appreciated the evidence which was beyond his jurisdiction as he was only to see whether prima facie cognizable offence was disclosed against the accused persons or not. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in 1980 (Supp) SCC 499, Kewal Krishan Vs. Suraj Bhan and Another, wherein it has been held that:
" At the stage of Sections 203 and 204 in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, all that the magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 there is prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused. All that he has to see is whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If there is prima facie evidence, that will be a sufficient ground for issuing process to the accused and committing them for trial to the Court of Session. The standard to be adopted by the magistrate in scrutinising the evidence is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges. At this stage of Sections 203 and 204, the magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial Court."
Leaned counsel further relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No.2719 of 2007 (Farman Vs. State of U.P.) which also lays down the law, as has been held by the Apex Court.
On the other hand, learned AGA has tried to justify the order of the Court below on the ground that the Court below finding that the case was purely of civil nature between the parties and it appeared before it that the present incident for which the complaint was lodged against the accused were exaggerated in order to harass them.
Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, from the perusal of the impugned order I find that the learned Judge was not right in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by appreciating and weighing the evidence of the complainant and its witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. at the time of issuing process. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Copurt in the case of Kewal Krishan (supra), the impugned order dated 10.3.2010 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below for passing an order afresh in view of the above observations. The revision stands allowed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2012
NS
