Allahabad High Court
Dwarika Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 23 August, 2016
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25226 of 2016
Applicant :- Dwarika Prasad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records.
The complaint case no. 336 of 2015 (Dwarika Prasad Vs. Sukharm and others) was filed for prosecution of opposite parties under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 354, 323, 504 and 506 IPC for alleged maltreatment and molestation of wife of complainant by eight opposite parties including a lady. After accepting evidences under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the ACJM, Court No.-5 had passed order dated 2.4.2016, by which said complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
Against said order of trial court, Criminal Revision no. 252 of 2016 (Dwarika Prasad Vs. State of U.P.) was preferred by complainant, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 23.7.2016 of Sessions Judge, Aligarh, by which order dated 2.4.2016 of trial court was confirmed. Against said orders of trial court as well as the revisional court, present application has been moved for exercising inherent jurisdiction and with request to pass order of cognizance and summoning against proposed accused persons/ opposite parties no. 2 to 9 of this application.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that trial court had not considered the evidences of complainant side, especially evidence of victim who had stated about alleged misbehavior committed against her wife wearing of dress and molestation. Therefore, impugned order dated 2.4.2016, which has been passed without properly appreciating evidences of complainant side, was erroneous and is liable to be quashed. He pointed out that this point was not considered by revisional court so order of revisional court is also erroneous.
Learned AGA has refuted these contentions and pointed out that on one hand applicant himself is absconding from the legal proceedings initiated against him by criminal court, and on other hand he is attempting to take help of court in present matter. He pointed out that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders.
This is a fact that in support of complaint, evidences under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were adduced including evidence of the alleged victim, but after going through them and considering other facts, the trial court had found the complaint case doubtful and also held that there is no prima faice case established for summoning the proposed accused persons. In the impugned order, trial court had also sited a case of 'M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. And other Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and other 1998, SC 128' and accordingly passed impugned order for dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. with finding that prima facie case for summoning the proposed accused is not made out.
This contention of applicant side is not incorrect that witnesses of complainant side had given evidences during enquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in support of the complaint case, but in spite of those evidences, the trial court had not found them believable at its face value.
At the time of passing order of cognizance or summoning, the Magistrate is not expected to accept every evidence adduced before it by its words or on its face value, if it is found unreliable or unacceptable to him. For passing such order, the satisfaction of Magistrate should be the basic consideration.
In present case trial court had rightly relied on aforesaid judgment of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. case and had given finding that from available evidences, prima facie case is not made out and complaint version is not believable. Neither revisional court nor this court under inherent jurisdiction are expected to reappreciate the evidences only on the ground that on the basis of evidences adduced before the trial court, there may be probability of reaching to one such conclusion which is different from that of conclusion of reached by trial court on basis of finding of fact, especially when the findings of trial court are not found altogether perverse. This is the case in present matter. Therefore, this court does not find any reason to exercise inherent jurisdiction to interfere in this matter.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2016
Sanjeev
