Reshma Devi vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1171 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 80
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 106 of 2021
 

 
Revisionist :- Reshma Devi
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ganesh Shankar Patel,Sanjay Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. This criminal revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2 in Complaint Case No. 2490 of 2016 (Reshama Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others) under Sections 420, 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Musaghag, District Budaun whereby the court below has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.

2. Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for State.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for revisionist that revisionist has filed a complaint against private respondents wherein allegations were made that the private respondents took the revisionist to Tehsil and forcibly obtained her thumb impression on some papers and when the son of revisionist reached there and said that the respondents were forcibly getting the sale deed execution from his mother, he was beaten by them. Learned counsel submitted that the version of revisionist/complainant was supported in her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that two witnesses were also examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. but despite that the complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by impugned order dated 09.10.2020. It has been further submitted that in the alleged incident revisionist has sustained injuries and she was medically examined but despite that the court below has dismissed the complaint. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application.

5. At this stage it would be expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows :-

Section 203 Cr.P.C.

"Dismissal of complaint- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing,"

Section 204 Cr.P.C.

"204.Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."

6. Thus, it is clear that as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings with regard to the complaint case after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding exists and he may dismiss the complaint. It is well settled that if a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it show that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.

7. In S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2001 SC 12960 while examining the scope of section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 15,16 and 17 has held as under :

"15. In case of a complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The words 'sufficient ground' used under Section 202 have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.

16. This Court in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and others, (1993)(3)SCC 753), in para 22, referring to scheme of Sections 200-203 of Cr.P.C. has explained that "The section does not say that a regular trial of adjudging truth or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage, for, such a person can be called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has been issued and he is on trial. Section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials there is in his judgment not sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose (1964 (1)SCR 639) where dismissal of a complaint by the Magistrate at the stage of Section 2092 inquiry was set aside, this Court laid down that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed (p.653) that where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case."

17. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kongalgi (1976(3) SCC 736) this Court dealing with the scope of inquiry under Section 202 has stated that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (C) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. It is also indicated by way of illustration in which cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process can be quashed on such case being "where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused."

8. In the instant case, perusal of record shows that quite vague allegations have been made against private respondents that these five persons gave beatings to revisionist and her son in Tehsil premises. No specific role was assigned to the respondents. Alleged incident has been shown of Tehsil campus, where a number of persons remain present but no independent witness has been examined. The court below has considered the entire matter in correct perspective and dismissed the complaint by a reasoned order. It is well settled that summoning of a person as an accused is an important matter and a person cannot be summoned as accused in a routine manner. This Court does not find any material illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order so as to require any interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.

9. The instant revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 20.1.2021

Mohit