Allahabad High Court
Avadhesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2636 of 2019
Revisionist :- Avadhesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Surendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Sushant Mishra, Advocate holding brief for Sri Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. Sri G.P. Singh on behalf of State and perused the record.
Present revision has been preferred against the impugned summoning order dated 20.5.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Farrukhabad in S.S.T. No. 36 of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Narveer & Others) whereby the revisionist has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No.263 of 2014, under Sections 323/34, 376, 452, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Nawabganj, District Farrukhabad.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that though the name of the revisionist is appearing in the FIR as well as in the statement of the victim/informant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also in the statement of the victim recorded in the trial court but there are lot of discrepancies in those statement and because of the summoning order dated 20.5.2019 passed by the trial court against the revisionist to face trial, is erroneous and needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed for quashing of the impugned order dated 20.5.2019.
I have gone through the order impugned. The trial court after considering the matter at length has recorded that the accused applicant along with co-accused Narveer are stated to have committed rape upon opposite party no.2, the statement recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim and on the basis of the injuries which were found on the body of the victim, prima facie there were sufficient evidence that accused applicant-revisionist be summoned to face trial under the above mentioned Section. I do not see any infirmity in the order impugned. As regards the discrepancy in the statements, it can be evaluated only after full trial, therefore, the quashing of impugned order is refused.
However, it is provided that if the revisionist appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the revisionist shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 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 revisionist. However, in case, the revisionist does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Meenu
