Allahabad High Court
Tej Ram And Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 29 January, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32366 of 2008
Applicant :- Tej Ram And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- R.K.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Radhey Shyam Shukla
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 12.5.2008, whereby the applicants were summoned for trial under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 IPC.
The facts, leading to filing of the present application, are that on 23.10.2005, during the election of the Kshetra Panchayat for the post of Block Development Committee, a dispute arose in between the parties, which led to incidents of alleged violence in between the parties. The applicant no. 1 lodged an FIR on 23.10.2005 at about 11:30 a.m. against the opposite parties-accused persons including the OP No. 2, which was registered as Case Crime No. 169 of 2005, under Sections 177, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC read with Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. The police investigated the Case Crime No. 169 of 2005 and submitted a charge-sheet on 31.12.2005, on which the cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded.
It is alleged that only on account of lodging of the FIR, which was registered as Case Crime No. 169 of 2005, the opposite parties lodged a cross FIR, which was registered as Case Crime No. 169A of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC read with Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act on 23.10.2005 at about 12:30 p.m., in which the applicants were made accused. It is stated that after investigation, the police submitted a final report no. 1 of 2006 dated 4.6.2006.
In respect of the said final report, a protest petition was filed by the opposite party no. 2 herein and on the basis of the said protest petition, the Magistrate concerned proceeded to record the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the statement of two prosecution witnesses, namely, Ramesh and Vidya Ram under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as well as statement of PW-4 on 2.4.2008. Thus, on the basis of statement of complainant and the PWs, proceeded to issue summons, summoning the applicants for trial under Sections 147, 148, 307, 149 IPC. The said order dated 12.5.2008 is under challenge before this Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order dated 12.5.2008 was an improper exercise of powers. In support of the said submission, he argues that the version of the opposite parties that they had taken the action as a self defence was disbelieved by the trial court while passing the final judgment in Case Crime No. 169 of 2005. He further argues that when the summoning order was passed, two of the summoned persons had already died and thus it demonstrates that there was no application of mind. In view of the said argument, learned counsel for the applicants prays that the order dated 12.5.2008 is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the OP No. 2 on the other hand argues that from the perusal of the statements of the witnesses, as recorded before the Magistrate, a clear case for summoning was made out. As regards the argument of the applicants that the Court had disbelieved the version of the opposite parties with regard to self defence, as recorded in the judgment while deciding the case arising out of Case Crime No. 169 of 2005, he argues that the same cannot give legitimacy or otherwise to the applicants, which are on record, for which the applicants have been summoned.
In the counter affidavit, he has placed on record the medical reports to justify that a clear case was made out and thus no error has been committed by the Magistrate while summoning the accused by means of the order sought to be impugned in the present proceedings.
I have perused the order, which is impugned. A perusal of the said order shows that the Court concerned considered the statements of all the witnesses and noticed that in the statement, it was alleged that firearm injuries were caused to the informants, which was duly supported by the medical report on record and on a prima facie consideration of the evidence as led before him read with medical report, he proceeded to summon the accused. A perusal of the said statements coupled with the medical report clearly demonstrates that a prima facie case was made out and thus no error can be found out in the order dated 12.5.2008.
The application, for the grounds as argued and noted above, is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2021
S. Rahman
