Hemant Mohan & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another
2018 Latest Caselaw 561 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4499 of 2011
 
Revisionist :- Hemant Mohan & Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Khanna,Anurag Pathak,Himadari Batra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Nazia Ilyas,P.C. Srivastava,Sarwar Ali Siddiqui
 

 
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

Heard Ms. Himadari Batra, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri S.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned summoning order dated 21.9.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.2339 of 2011 (Vijay Singh Rana Vs. Hemant Mohan & another), by which the learned Magistrate had issued process to summon the revisionists for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that revisionist no.1 is Deputy Managing Director and revisionist no.2 is C.E.O. of Mohan Mekins Company Limited, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, where the opposite party no.2 was an employee and his services were terminated vide order dated 25.7.2009; that feeling aggrieved with his termination, the opposite party no.2, who was also an union leader lodged a false F.I.R. against the revisionist no.2 and others on 6.2.2010 at Case Crime No.221 of 2010, under Sections 380, 457 I.P.C. for the alleged incident of house breaking and theft dated 10.11.2009; that in above Case Crime No.221 of 2010 upon investigation final report was submitted on 16.4.2010 against which opposite party no.2 filed protest petition and vide order dated 18.10.2010 the learned Magistrate setting aside the final report ordered for further investigation; that during further investigation the I.O. submitted Parcha on 24.5.2011 to the effect that false case has been filed and submitted final report on 31.5.2011; that against the second final report the opposite party no.2 again filed a protest petition on 11.8.2011 which was treated as Complaint Case No.2339 of 2011, re-numbered as Complaint Case No.4885 of 2011 and the above complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 13.1.2012; that on submission of final report in Case Crime No.221 of 2010 opposite party no.2 being union leader felt annoyed and filed the present complaint case with absolutely false, concocted and incorrect allegations; that no incident did take place on 27.5.2011 as mentioned in the complaint; that it is absolutely wrong to say that the revisionists along with two unknown persons committed mar-pit with the opposite party no.2 on 27.5.2011 at about 4:00 p.m.; that learned trial court has not applied its judicial mind to the facts of the case and has acted wrongly and illegally in passing the impugned order of summoning against the revisionists; that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that there was no injury report on record and the witnesses examined by opposite party no.2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were interested witnesses being his friends and were not reliable; that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 supported the impugned order and contended that it is absolutely wrong to say that the opposite party no.2 lodged false F.I.R. at Case Crime No.221 of 2010 or filed false complaint in the present case; that the revisionists are influential persons and by exerting their undue influence on local police they got the final report submitted by the I.O. at two times and unfortunately subsequently the protest petition of opposite party no.2 which was treated as complaint was dismissed on 13.1.2012 by learned Magistrate under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

Upon hearing the parties counsel and perusal of record as well as copies of Complaint No.2339 of 2011 dated 7.6.2011 at A-2, statement of complainant-opposite party no.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. at A-3, statement of Rajneesh Sharma under Section 202 Cr.P.C. at A-4, statement of Jitendera Kumar under Section 202 at A-5, copy of Parcha of case diary with regard to investigation of Case Crime No.221 of 2010 at A-6 copy of second final report dated 31.5.2011 in Case Crime No.221 of 2010 at A-7, copy of order dated 13.1.2012 dismissing the Complaint Case No.4885 of 2011, under Section 380, 457 I.P.C. arosen out of Case Crime No.221 of 2010 at S.A.-1 and impugned order, I find that undisputedly the opposite party no.2 was worker as well as union leader in Mohan Mekins, of which revisionists were Deputy Managing Director and C.E.O. It is also undisputed that services of opposite party no.2 were terminated on 25.7.2009 after which a F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no.2 on 6.2.2010 against revisionist no.2 and others under Section 380, 457 I.P.C. for the alleged incident of house breaking and theft dated 10.11.2009 which was registered at Case Crime No.221 of 2010. In above Case Crime No.221 of 2010 final report was submitted on 16.4.2010 and on protest petition of opposite party no.2 further investigation was ordered on 18.10.2010 and after further investigation final report was again submitted on 31.5.2011. It is the contention of opposite party no.2 that the revisionists being office bearers of the Mohan Mekins Company were threatening him for withdrawing the above Case Crime No.221 of 2010 and when he refused from withdrawing the case, they committed the incident of mar-peet and intimidation with him on 27.5.2011.

As per averments made in the complaint, on 27.5.2011 when opposite party no.2 was returning from the temple along with his friends Rajneesh Sharma and Jitendra Kumar, the revisionists along with two unknown persons came by a vehicle and indicated towards him whereafter revisionist no.1 Hemant Mohan slapped him while revisionist no.2 and two others committed mar-pit with him with kicks, fists and slaps asking him to withdraw the case against them and also threatened him of life and in the incident of mar-peet in question his Titan wrist watch and golden chain were also snatched by these persons and when Rajneesh Sharma intervened, they also made a scuffle with them and the opposite party no.2 sustained various injuries.

In his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in contradiction to averments of complaint the opposite party no.2 by assigning specific role has stated that the golden chain from his neck was snatched by Hemant Mohan while Titan wrist watch from his hand was snatched by Colonel Pushpendra and they also made scuffle with his friend and in the incident he sustained multiple injuries and the clothes of his friends were torn. In contradiction to above statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. his witnesse Rajneesh Sharma in his statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has stated that the golden chain and Titan wrist watch both were snatched from Vijay Singh by Hemant Mohan while another witness Jitendra Kumar has stated that in the incident Vijay Singh, opposite party no.2 sustained grievous injuries.

The above material on record shows that the statements of complainant and his witnesses are in contradiction to the averments made in the complaint, as well as there are material contradictions inter-se their statements with regard to injuries of opposite party no.2 and role assigned to revisionists. In complaint the wrist watch and golden chain are alleged to have been snatched by all the four miscreants without assigning specific role to anyone but in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the complainant has specified that golden chain was snatched by Hemant Mohan while the wrist watch was snatched by Colonel Pushpendra and in further contravention with him his witness Rajneesh has assigned the role of snatching of golden chain and wrist watch both to Hemant Mohan.

It is also noteworthy that without there any whisper in complaint, the complainant in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has stated that during the incident in question clothes of his witnesses were torn but his witnesses do not say in their statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that their clothes were torn by accused persons. It is also pertinent to mention that in support of allegations of multiple/grievous injuries of opposite party no.2, there is no iota of evidence like his injury report etc. Undisputedly Rajneesh Sharma and Jitendra Kumar are friends of complainant and are interested witnesses. Admittedly Rajneesh Sharma is the same person who also made a statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in support of protest petition of opposite party no.2 in Case Crime No.221 of 2010 where the Magistrate disbelieving him, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances the statements of Rajneesh Sharma and Jitendra Kumar are not trustworthy.

In view of above facts and contradictions on record, I find that learned Magistrate has passed the impugned summoning order without applying his mind about the above contradiction and has passed the impugned summoning order in mechanical manner. According to the opposite party no.2, the revisionists are influential persons, who allegedly got the final report submitted in Case Crime No.221 of 2010, but Annexure-6 shows that I.O. had submitted Parcha on 24.5.2011 mentioning that the prosecution case is false and thereafter there could have been no reason for the revisionists for committing the alleged incident in question on 27.5.2011. It is noteworthy that revisionist nos.1 & 2 are Deputy Managing Director and C.E.O. of company and being respectable persons of executive class, they may not be supposed to commit such an incident on road particularly when they are alleged to be influential persons, and could have got such incident, if at all required through their workers.

In view of above facts, I find that opposite party no.2 failed to show any prima-facie case or sufficient ground for summoning the revisionists for trial of any offence mentioned in the complaint, which appears to have been moved with false allegations and malafide intentions due to termination of services of opposite party no.2. Since there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate ought to have passed an order of dismissal of complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

In view of the discussions made above, I find that impugned order of summoning is absolutely wrong, incorrect, illegal having been passed without due application of mind and is liable to be set-aside. The revision is liable to be allowed.

The revision is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 21.9.2011 is set-aside. There is no sufficient ground for proceeding with complaint against the revisionists and the complaint stands dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

Order Date :-16.05.2018

Kpy