Sughar Singh vs State Of U.P. & Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 4368 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

					             RESERVED/AFR
 
Court No. 13
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2334 of 2008
 
Revisionist :- Sughar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- J.P. Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Jitendra Singh Lodhi
 

 
Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. In spite of the notice, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4.

This Criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 11.7.2008 passed by the Special Judge (DAA) Hamirpur, whereby the learned Judge rejected the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C." in Special Case No. 33 of 2008, filed against opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 under sections 392, 504, 506 and 452 IPC.

In short compass the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by Sughar Singh, the revisionist herein with the allegations that on 8.5.2008 opposite party No. 2 to 4 have forcibly taken away his wife Smt. Raj Kunwar along with jewellery and Rs. 15,000/-, which was kept in the house. The information of this incident was given to the police station Majhgawan, district Hamirpur, but when no action was taken by the police of PS Majhgawan, the complainant approached the higher police authority by making application. On the intervention of the higher police authority, when the police started to make a search of the accused, a threat was given to the brother of the complainant on his mobile. On 24.5.2008 at about 6.00 P.M., when the complainant was at home along with his relatives Brij Lal, Dhoop Chand and his nephew Indrapal, all of a sudden Bihari, Badhai and Ratan (opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 in this revision) armed with rifle along with three others persons, who were carrying gun, rushed to the house and started beating the complainant and looted away Rs. 4500/- from the pocket of the complainant and threatened of dire consequences if the report is lodged.

The complainant Sughar Singh has examined himself under section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses Brij Lal, Dhoop Chand and Indrapal under section 202 Cr.P.C.

However, the learned Special Judge disbelieved the story mentioned in the complaint and rejected the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C, by holding that it is a case of love affair and Smt. Raj Kunwar, wife of the complainant being major is fully aware about pros and cons of the act done by her.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order suffers from manifest error of laws inasmuch as from the reading of the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C a prima facie case is disclosed against opposite party Nos. 2 to 4.

It is further contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Special Judge has erred in passing the impugned order without appreciating that there is material on record which clearly proves the commission of offence by opposite party Nos. 2 to 4.

He further contends that at the stage of summoning the accused persons, learned Judge has only to see whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the judgment of the Special Judge and argued that from the complaint and statement of the witnesses it could not be established that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against opposite party Nos. 2 to 4.

It may be apposite to advert to the nature, scope, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under sections 203/204 Cr.P.C. At the threshold, the purpose is twofold. As it has often been repeated, a bona fide complainant who has a genuine grievance must be granted access to the Court and given a further and fuller opportunity to substantiate the allegations made by him against the suspected accused. He is not expected to prove his case to the hilt at that stage. Whether conviction would follow or the accused will be entitled for acquittal is not a factor to be considered at the stage of section 203/204 Cr.P.C. Whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding is the only short and limited question to be considered at the stage of section 203/204 Cr.P.C. But at the same time vexatious complaint initiating unjustified proceeding against a suspected accused and trying to abuse and exploit the criminal adjudicatory process, who does not have a satisfactory case must be shown the door at that stage itself. He must not be permitted to proceed further and cause harassment and prejudice to a person, who does not deserve to suffer such trauma. This is the mandate of section 203/204 Cr.P.C. Enquiry under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C are geared and catered to answer this basic question as to whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the suspected accused or not.

Section 203 and 204 Cr.P.C. reads as under:

203. Dismissal of Complaint:- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.

204. Issue of process:- (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrent-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself), some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.

(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.

(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.

(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87".

The expression "sufficient ground" in section 203 Cr.P.C. points exclusively to the facts which the complainant brings to the knowledge of the Magistrate for establishing a prima facie case against the suspected accused. The decision whether there is sufficient ground must be reached by the exercise of discretion based upon judicial consideration. A Magistrate may dismiss a complaint (a) if he finds that no offence has been committed upon the statement of the complainant; (b) if he distrust the statements by the complainant, and(c) if he finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Limited and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749, cautioned the courts below against casual manner of taking cognizance of cases and held as under:

"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegation in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrae is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

In this case the complaint has been filed for the two incidents. First incident took place on 8.5.2008 when the opposite party No.2 Bihari forcibly took away the wife of the complainant along with Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand). The second incident took place on 24.5.2008 when opposite party No. 2 to 4 along with three others persons armed with rifle and guns attacked the complainant and beaten him with the butt of the gun, kicks and fists and snatched away Rs. 4,500/- (rupees four thousand five hundred) from the pocket of the complainant.

The learned Special Judge while rejecting the complaint, held that it is not a case of loot, but it is a case of love affair and because of that the wife of the complainant being major left the house with opposite party No. 2, Bihari after taking away her jewellery and cash leaving her children and no prima facie case is made out to summon the accused under sections 392, 504, 506 and 452 IPC and dismissed the complaint.

The revisionist in his complaint has stated that opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 along with three other persons came to his house and beaten him with the butt of the gun, kicks and fists, but there is no whisper about any injury received by him.

For the reasons aforementioned, I am of the opinion that it was not a fit case where the cognizance of the offence could have been taken or any summons could have been issued. The order dated 11.7.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Hamirpur does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date : 20.11.2015

Ishrat