Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Shafiq vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2081 of 2020
Revisionist :- Mohammad Shafiq
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharnidhar Pandey,Amit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aniruddh Kumar
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Shri Dharnidhar Pandey and Shri Amit Saxena, counsel for the revisionist, Shri S.P. Mishra holding brief of Shri Aniruddh Kumar, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A) Act, Siddharth Nagar in Special Criminal Case No. 23 of 2018 (State Vs. Jabbir Ali and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2018, under Sections 366-A, 452, 506, 511 IPC and Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Khesaraha, District-Siddhath Nagar, pending in the Court of Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Siddharth Nagar, whereby the revisionist has been summoned under Sections 366-A, 452, 506, 511 IPC and Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act.
The submissions of the counsel for the revisionist, in brief, are that an FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 71 of 2018, under Sections 366-A, 452, 506, 511, 120-B IPC, Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, P.S. Khesaraha, District Siddharth Nagar. In the said FIR, which is on record as Annexure-2, it was alleged that the informant is of a schedule caste and on 9.6.2018 at about 8:00 p.m. in the night, after opening the gate one Jabbir Ali came inside the house and asked the informant to run away with him and on refusal he took out a knife and place it at the neck and threatened in case she does not go with the said accused, she would be killed. Later on, she was taken from her house by force and on a shouting her mother, father, sister and neighbours came and immediately on the coming of those people, the accused Jabbir Ali left the premises. It was alleged that the said act has been committed by Jabbir Ali in connivance by one Mohammad Shafiq son of Mohammad Tayyab.
The police investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet against Jabbir Ali and Kamlesh, however, the revisionist was not charge-sheeted. Subsequently, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she reiterated the incident as narrated in the FIR and in particular she stated that the acts as stated against Jabbir Ali were done in connivance with Shafiq. Based upon the said statement, which is on record, an order summoning the revisionist was passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which is under challenge in the present revision.
Counsel for the revisionist argues that there was nothing on record to exercise the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as has been done by the Court below. He further states that even in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there was not enough material so as to come to a conclusion that was existed evidence, which can be said to be a more than prima facie evidence, but short of evidence to the satisfaction that the same if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others; 2014 (3) SCC 92.
The counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand argues that based upon the statement, no error was committed in summoning the revisionist. He has drawn my attention to the statement of the victim recorded on 7.6.2019, wherein she stated that the act was done by Jabbir Ali on the instructions of Shafiq. She also stated that Shafiq had also in the past asked her to accept the advances of Jabbir Ali, failing which she would also be taken away like her sister was taken away. In the cross-examination, she also stated that in the past also Shafiq was forcing her to accept the advances of Jabbir Ali and had in fact threatened her also. Based upon the said statement recorded in the cross examination, which is on record, the order for summoning the revisionist was passed.
Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sartaj Singh vs. State of Haryana and another; 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 147, wherein the Supreme Court relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra) held that even on the basis of the statement of examination-in-chief, the summoning order can be passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
On the basis of the documents, which are on record including the evidence in the cross examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the judgment in the case of Sartaj Singh (Supra) as well as Hardeep Singh (Supra), it cannot be said that there was no material whatsoever for summoning the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. No case for interference in exercise of powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is made out.
The revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed. In case, the revisionist appears and applies for bail within 30 days, the same shall be considered expeditiously.
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist.
Order Date :- 24.3.2021
S. Rahman
