Allahabad High Court
Sanoj Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., ... on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 349 of 2016
Applicant :- Sanoj Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Home Home & Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Gauri Suwan Pandey,Praveen Kumar Gupta,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava,Upendra Kumar Awasthi
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Notice was served on opposite party no.2, however no-one was present on his behalf.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicant -Sanoj Kumar with a prayer to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 14.1.2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.8, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.337 of 2015, Ranjeet Kumar v. State of U.P., whereby the revision preferred by the opposite party no.2 was allowed and the order dated 27.7.2015 of the subordinate court, passed in Complaint Case No.90984 of 2014 was set aside and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration in the light of the observations made in the order dated 14.1.2016 of the revisional court.
Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this application are that revisionist Sanoj Kumar filed a complaint case no.90984 of 2014 against opposite party no.2 and three other accused persons and the Magistrate concerned vide order dated 17.7.2015 has summoned the opposite party no.2 as well as accused Vinod Kumar and Ramesh Kumar to face trial under Sections 420,467,468,471 and Section 120-B I.P.C.
A revision was preferred by one of the accused persons, namely Ranjeet Kumar by filing revision no.337 of 2015 and the revisional court vide its order dated 14.1.2016 set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 17.7.2015 and directed the Magistrate to pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made by the revisional court in its order after providing opportunity of being heard to the parties.
Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court dated 14.1.2016, the revisionist/complainant has preferred this petition with a prayer to quash the order of the revisional court whereby the case has been remanded back to the Magistrate for passing a fresh order. The revisional court remanded the matter back to the court of the Magistrate on the grounds that on the similar facts another complaint case no.802 of 2012, under Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B I.P.C. was filed by the brother of applicant, namely, Santram, which was dismissed by the court of the Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and that order was not challenged by Santram and on the same set of facts, the instant complaint has been made to the Magistrate concealing that on the similar set of facts a complaint case was earlier filed and dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 4.6.2012.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the instant complaint before the Magistrate has been filed by the applicant/complainant stating therein that with regard to the ancestral property of the applicant accused person prepared a forged Mukhtarnama and also executed a sale deed in favour of Smt.Rajeshwari, real Bhabhi of opposite party no.2. After recording of statement of compromise under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate vide order dated 25.4.2014 directed the police station concerned for investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the report submitted by the police station concerned would show that the signature on the Mukhtarnama were forged and learned Magistrate after finding the truth in the allegation of the complainant has summoned the opposite party no.2 and other accused persons. However the revisional court has set aside the order of the Magistrate on the ground that earlier, on similar facts one complaint was filed by the brother of the applicant Santram which was dismissed by the Magistrate concerned vide its order dated 4.6.2012 and, therefore, the summoning order dated 17.7.2015, passed in the instant complaint case has been obtained by playing fraud and also that the Magistrate has enquired the case himself, as well as get the same investigated through police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and has remanded the matter back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made in the judgment.
It is further submitted that the revisional court has provided the benefit of Section 300 Cr.P.C. to the opposite party no.2 illegally while there is no bar to file second complaint if the accused person of the earlier complaint has not been discharged or acquitted.
Learned counsel for applicant has relied on the following case laws :
1. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 876
Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar and others.
2. 2003 (1) JIC 15 15 (SC)
Mahesh Chand v. B.Janardan Reddy & Anr.
3. 2016 (3) JIC 496 (All)
Raj Kumar Prabhakar and others v. State of U.P. and others.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand submits that though the second complaint on the same facts is not barred, if the second complaint has been filed with some new set of facts and the new evidence has been placed by the complainant but if the fact of filing of earlier complaint and its dismissal has been concealed and not disclosed in the second complaint the same will amount to concealment of material fact and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the revisional court in directing the Magistrate to pass fresh order.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record it is evident that earlier a complaint was filed by one Santram against the accused persons including the opposite party no.2 as Complaint Case No.802 of 2012 alleging therein that the accused persons have prepared a forged mukhtarnama and the same complaint case after recording of the statement of the complainant and his witnesses was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 4.6.2012. It is also apparent that the applicant, namely, Sanoj Kumar has filed the instant complaint no.90984 of 2014 against the same set of accused persons on the same set of facts and the Magistrate concerned has summoned the accused persons including the opposite party no.2 by passing the order dated 17.7.2015. It is also evident that the first complaint was filed by complainant Santram, who is the real brother of the complainant of instant complaint, namely Sanoj Kumar. It is also evident that in the instant complaint the complainant of the earlier complainant, namely, Santram has also been testified as a witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and he has also not uttered a single word with regard to filing of earlier complaint by him and of dismissing the same under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It could not be said that the fact of dismissal of earlier complaint was not in the knowledge of the complainant of the instant complaint, namely Sanoj Kumar (applicant), who is the real brother of applicant/complainant of Sant Ram, complainant of earlier complaint. It is, therefore, apparent that the fact of dismissal of the earlier complaint filed on the same set of facts was not brought in the knowledge of the Magistrate at the time of passing of the summoning order dated 17.7.2015 in instant Complaint Case No.90984 of 2014 and these facts have been deliberately concealed by the complainant/applicant.
The revisional court vide its order dated 14.1.2016 after getting the knowledge that the earlier complaint case was filed by the brother of the applicant (Santram) and its dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C. has been concealed from the court of Magistrate has only directed the Magistrate to pass a fresh order and has remanded back the case to him. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said that any illegality or even any irregularity has been committed by the revisional court and only on this score the application filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed. Applicant cannot take any help from the case laws filed by him, due to difference in factual position.
Therefore, application appears to be devoid of any substance and is accordingly dismissed.
Office is directed to immediately send a copy of this order to the revisional court as well as to the Magistrate concerned.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021
Irfan
