Sukhbir Singh vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 6927 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 11
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2981 of 2016
 
Revisionist :- 	   Sukhbir Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- 	     Arvind Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 25.6.2016 passed by Special Judge(DAA Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Etah in complaint case no. 27/2016 (Sukhbir Singh Vs. Mohar Singh and others), by which complaint case was dismissed under section 203 CrPC.

2. The complaint case in brief was that Mohar Singh and Vinod, resident of village of complainant, had requested for loan of Rs. 9,000/-. Then on asking of complainant, his brother Jasbir had given said amount of loan to Mohar Singh and Vinod. But they had not returned amount of loan inspite of reminders. On 8.2.2016 at about 6:00 A.M. in morning complainant had sent reminder to Vinod and Mohar Singh for return of loan amount through Jasbir, which led to oral altercation. On same day, Vonod, Mohar and Smt. Sushma (wife of Vinod) had trespassed in the house of complainant armed with illegal fire arms, used filthy language and Vinod fired at complainant, but he escaped the fire. Then Mohar and Smt. Sushma had snatched money from the pocket of complainant. The report of this incident was not lodged in police, then complainant filed complaint case.

3. After accepting evidences of complainant under section 200 CrPC and of witnesses PW-1 Pappu @ Raj Kishore and PW-2 Jasbir under section 202 CrPC, the lower court had heard the complainant side on point of cognizance and thereafter dismissed the complaint case under section 203 CrPC by impugned order dated 25.6.2016. Against said order, present revision has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-complainant submitted that there has been evidence under sections 200 and 202 CrPC in support of complaint which are uncontroverted, and from which serious offences of robbery, misappropriation of money, house trespass and attempt to murder is prima facie established; but lower court had erroneously passed impugned order on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Therefore, the impugned order should be quashed.

5. From perusal of record, it is found that trial court had properly appreciated the facts and evidences adduced in this matter. It has quoted a few sentences of statement of complainant, which relate to reason of filing the complaint, and thereafter passed impugned order with finding that this matter relate to dispute relating to money transaction and in this matter there is no evidences on record for injury. Therefore, there is no reason to pass order of summoning. This impugned order reveals that it has been passed after understanding facts and circumstances of the matter and after application of judicial mind.

6. Section 203 Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint even without issuing a process. It uses the words 'after considering' and 'the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding'. These words suggest that the Magistrate has to apply his mind to a complaint at initial stage itself and see whether a case is made out against the accused person before issuing process to them on the basis of complaint. For applying his mind and forming an opinion as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, a complaint must make out a prima facie case to the satisfaction of Magistrate/ trial Court, to proceed. Even section 204 CrPC starts with the words 'if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding'. It is settled law that at the time of issuing of the process, Magistrate is required to satisfy itself regarding allegations in complaint.

7. In M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others, 1998 UPCrR 118 Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has 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 allegations 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 Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. Magistrate had to carefully scrutinize 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."

8. The section 204 CrPC deals with issue of process, says that Magistrate may issue process if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance. Thus, the satisfaction of the Magistrate is primary thing for taking cognizance of any offence for issuance of process of summoning against accused person. For his satisfaction, Magistrate has to appreciate not only evidences adduced, but it also is expected from him to read between the lines to understand the matter properly as discussed by Apex Court in case of M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd.(supra). The process should not be issued merely because a few witnesses had supported the allegations in complaint. The order of cognizance and issuance of process should be passed only when evidences lead to satisfy the Magistrate regarding commission of offence.

9. In present matter, although there has been allegation that Vinod, his wife Smt. Sushma Devi and Mohar Singh had attempted murder, committed robbery, trespassed in the house, but after appreciating evidences, especially the statement under section 200 CrPC of the complainant, lower court was satisfied that complaint was filed only because proposed accused had not returned the amount of loan, and the real matter related to dispute of money transaction. Even the absence of injury and non concealment of identity by previously known accused at the time of alleged incident of robbery was considered by trial court before reaching to its conclusion. It appears that in spite of evidences adduced in support of complaint case, learned court below was not satisfied with the commission of such offence that may require order of cognizance and issuance of process. Therefore, it had declined to pass order of cognizance and summoning and dismissed the complaint under section 203 CrPC. Such order, in light of above legal discussion, cannot be treated as infirm or perverse to need interference by this Court.

10. There appears no error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order that may require exercise of revisional jurisdiction for interference. Therefore, this revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 09.11.2016

SR