Allahabad High Court
Ashwani Verma vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others on 5 October, 2016
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2395 of 2016
Revisionist :- Ashwani Verma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ghanshyam Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 26.3.2016 passed by Special Judge (DAA aCT)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-2, Etah in Complaint Case No. 55 of 2015, Ashwani Verms Vs. Umesh Pawar and others, by which complaint was dismissed under section 203 CrPC. This complaint was filed by revisionist with averment that wife of complainant (Priyanka, daughter of Umesh Pawar) had conspired with other accused persons and had been sending confidential information of the house and business of complainant to accused persons. On 22.2.2015 at about 12 O' Clock in noon, Umesh Pawar, father-in-law of complainant alongwith his son Surya Pratap Singh Pawar , Smt. Asha Devi, mother-in-law of complainant, Deepak Verma and some other persons had trespassed in the house of complainant and committed dacoity and took money and articles of complainant.
2. In support of complaint, the complainant had examined himself under section 200 CrPC and witnessed namely Sanjay Verma, Pappu and Kuldeep under section 202 CrPC. Then after affording opportunity of hearing, the trial court had passed impugned order dated 26.3.2016 by which said complaint was dismissed under section 203 CrPC. Aggrieved by this impugned order, present revision has been preferred by complainant-revisionist.
3. Heard Sri Dhanshyam Dwivedi, counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, counsel for opposite party no. 2 to 5 and perused the records.
4. Counsel for the revisionist contended that from the evidences adduced under section 200 and 202 CrPC the commission of cognizable offence is made out, therefore, the trial court should have passed order of cognizance and summoning. So by impugned order, the trial court had erroneously dismissed the complaint on the basis of speculation and without sufficient reason. Therefore, revision should been allowed; so the impugned order should be quashed.
5. Counsel for opposite party no.-2 contended that earlier proceedings under section 498-A and other offences and also proceedings under section 125 CrPC were initiated on behalf of opposite parties against revisionist, therefore, in counter blast he had filed complaint case on the basis of incorrect facts so that he may pressurize the opposite parties to enter into compromise for dropping the proceedings of earlier instituted criminal proceedings. His submission is that there is no illegality in impugned order of trial court, therefore, revision should not be admitted.
6. From perusal of contents of complaint, the evidences under Chapter XV CrPC and the impugned order reveals that the trial court had properly appreciated the adduced evidence, their circumstances and then passed impugned order after application of judicial mind. Although witnesses examined on behalf of revisionist-complainant had given statement in support of complaint case, but trial court had not only understood and appreciated those evidence, but had also appreciated circumstances before reaching to the conclusion that no prima facie offence appears to have been committed in this matter and that this dispute emanated from failure of matrimonial relationship. With these findings the impugned order was passed. The finding of trial court is based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence and the conclusions reached by it appears one of the probable conclusions from those evidence. A perusal of the record reveals that finding of the impugned judgment are apparently acceptable and there is no apparent error or irregularity in it. In any case, there appears no perversity in the finding of the trial court.
7. In case of 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 164, Deb Narayan Halder vs. Anushree Halder (Smt), the Apex Court has held as under:
"It is well settled that the appellate or revisional court while setting aside the findings recorded by the court below must notice those findings, and if the appellate or revisional court comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are untenable, record its reasons for coming to the said conclusion. Where the findings are findings of fact it must discuss the evidence on record which justify the reversal of the findings recorded by the court below. This is particularly so when findings recorded by the trial court are sought to be set aside by an appellate or revisional court. One cannot take exception to a judgment merely on the ground of its brevity, but if the judgment appears to be cryptic and conclusions are reached without even referring to the evidence on record or noticing the findings of the trial court, the party aggrieved is entitled to ask for setting aside of such a judgment."
8. In case of 2002 Cri. L.J. 225; Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another" the Apex Court has held as under:
"The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of the charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Saha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges."
9. In case of AIR 2002 S.C. 2229; Jagannath Choudhary & ors vs. Ramayan Singh & another" the Apex Court has held as under:
"Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction".
"It is not an appeal wherein scruitiny of evidence is possible, neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible."
10. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that learned Magistrate had appreciated the facts and evidences of the case and then after being satisfied about the facts relating to charges, had passed the judgment. From a perusal of the records it appears that conclusions read by learned Magistrate are based on available evidences and logical conclusions. In these circumstances, it would be improper to quash the impugned order by substituting any other finding of the fact. There appears nothing on the basis of correctness, legality or propriety of impugned order which can be doubted. There appears no irregularity in procedure adopted by the trial court. So there is no justification for interference in the impugned judgment dated 26.3.2016. Therefore, revision fails, and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.10.2016
SKS
