Allahabad High Court
Kamla And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 February, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1151 of 2019
Petitioner :- Kamla And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed to set-aside the impugned order dated 7.1.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Special Judge, Court No. 3, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 160 of 2018 (Kamla and others Vs. State of U.P. and another).
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent no. 2 Urmila has filed a complaint against the petitioners in which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under section 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC vide order dated 6.6.2017. The petitioners have filed a Criminal Revision No. 160 of 2018 against the summoning order dated 6.6.2017 which was dismissed by the revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 7.1.2019. In fact, no such incident has taken place. There was no ground to summon the petitioners. There is no injury report on record to support the complaint version. The judgment and order of revisional court is not in accordance with law.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have filed a criminal revision against the summoning order dated 6.6.2017 which was dismissed by the revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 7.1.2019. In complaint it has been mentioned that at the time of alleged incident the petitioners were breaking lock of the house of complainant/respondent no. 2 and also detained the husband of complainant on gun point and petitioners tried to commit rape upon the complainant/respondent no. 2. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the petitioners to face the trial under section 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order as well as in the judgment and order of revisional court.
A perusal of the record shows that respondent no. 2 in her complaint it has mentioned that on 31.7.2016 at about 7.30 p.m. the petitioners were breaking lock of her house and they caught hold the husband of respondent no. 2 and petitioners tried to commit rape upon her. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the petitioners to face the trial under section 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order. The petitioners have filed a criminal revision against the summoning order which was dismissed by the revisional court. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the revisional court. The learned Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to set-aside the impugned judgment and order passed in criminal revision no. 160 of 2018 (Kamla and others Vs. State of U.P. and another), therefore, the prayer for setting aside the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019
Masarrat
