Nasaruddin @ Nahni & 5 Others vs State Of U.P. & Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 4553 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2117 of 2016
 

 
Revisionist :- Nasaruddin @ Nahni & 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Ayub
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for applicants learned AGA and perused the record.

In complaint case no. 85 of 2012 (Yaqoob Vs. Nasaruddin and Others) summoning order 22.10.2014 was passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 4, Agra. By this order one accused Bhoora was summoned for offence u/s 307 IPC and other four accused including two ladies were summoned for offence u/s 323 IPC. Against this summoning order crl. revision no. 334 of 2015 (Yaqoob Vs. State of U.P.) was preferred by accused persons. This revision was allowed by the judgement dated 07.06.2016 of Additional District and Sessions Judge, court no.13, Agra. In operative portion of its judgement lower revisional court had quashed the summoning order dated 22.10.2014 passed by trial court, but also directed the trial court to consider evidences in light of observation in the judgement and consider as to whether provisions of section 34 or 149 of IPC would be applicable in this matter or not. In operative portion revisional court had also directed all accused persons (present applicants) to appear before trial court. This impugned order dated 7.6.2016 of revisional court is under challenge before this court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

From perusal of record, this portion of direction of revisional court is found not erroneous by which summoning order dated 22.10.2014 passed against the applicants was quashed and direction was given to pass fresh order in the light of evidences. This portion of direction of lower revisional court is confirmed. But the giving direction to pass order in the light of factual observation made by revisional court and consideration of application of provisions of Sections 34 and 149 IPC is erroneous. When trial court has been assigned responsibility to pass fresh order in accordance with facts of the matter then any direction for considering any particular fact or particular law will indirectly interfere the judicial discretion of lower court. Therefore, this portion of direction of lower revisional court is hereby quashed.

It is also pertinent that when revisional court had quashed the summoning order dated 22.10.2014 passed against the applicants and remanded the matter before trial court, then in present matter there remain no proceeding pending against the applicants, therefore they were not legally obliged to appear in any court in absence of any proceeding against them. Therefore, the direction of revisional court regarding command to applicants to appear in trial court is also erroneous and is hereby quashed.

In view of the above this application is disposed of

Order Date :- 27.7.2016

vkj