Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Pratap Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 May, 2013
Bench: Aditya Nath Mittal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 829 of 2010
Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 02.02.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I, Court No.17, Jaunpur in Criminal Case No.230 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind and has not assigned any reason to pass the aforesaid order. It has also been submitted that as per the averments of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. are not made out because there is only allegation of constituting an illegal committee. It has also been submitted that opposite party no.2 was Principal of the aforesaid College and the revisionists are the members of the Committee of Management and to pressurize them, the present complaint has been filed.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the decision in Qavi Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (78) ACC 896 in which this Court has held that if the Magistrate has taken cognizance on printed proforma, it establishes that he has not applied his mind.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon the decision in Ankit Vs. State of U.P., Laws (ALL)-2009-10-24 in which it has been held that if the order has been prepared by filling up the blanks on printed proforma, then it cannot be said that the judicial mind has been applied.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that opposite party no.2 had moved an application dated 16.09.2009 along with affidavit dated 16.09.2009 alleging that he had moved the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. under the pressure of Ganga Prasad Singh and now he does not want to contest the case, therefore, a final report may be submitted.
Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the aforesaid offences are prima facie proved against the revisionists. It has also been submitted that the revisionists had got certain blank signed papers under the pressure of goons and have prepared the aforesaid application dated 16.09.2009 as well as the affidavit dated 16.09.2009. It has been submitted that other cases between the same parties are also pending.
At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur versus State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Hariyana versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr) 426, State of Bihar versus P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr) 192, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. versus Mohd. Saraful Haqe and another (Para 10), 2005 SCC (Cr) 283 and lastly (2012) 11 SCC 465. Detailed reasoned order at the stage of issuance of process is not required under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the present case, in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. it has been alleged that the complainant was Principal in Sanjay Gandhi Smarak Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khueri, Sotipur, District Jaunpur and the Manager after beating him had got certain blank papers signed regarding which a case under Sections 323, 504,506 I.P.C. is pending. It has further been alleged that with a view to remove him from the post of Principal, the accused persons have prepared a false resolution upon which the complainant was suspended and the papers were sent for higher authorities. The District Magistrate was apprised regarding the said recommendation and preparation of false resolution upon which the recommendation was rejected on 25.08.2007.
This Court cannot enter into the factual matrix of the aforesaid case and cannot draw conclusion that whether the said committee was constituted in accordance with the rules or not. In the complaint, there is no such detail of any alleged wrongful loss which has been caused to the complainant.
For the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is directed that if the revisionists submit an application for discharge along with their Personal Bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned within 30 days from today, the Court below shall pass a reasoned order, and in the meanwhile no coercive measures including arrest and bail shall be taken against the revisionists till the disposal of the application for discharge provided that the revisionists fully cooperate in the proceedings. In case the application for discharge is rejected, the law will take its own course.
The revision is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.5.2013
P
