Rajendra Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1354 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 82
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1115 of 2015
 

 
Revisionist :- Rajendra Kumar And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

This revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 27.01.2015 passed by Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 357 of 2012 under Section 363/366 I.P.C. arising out of Crime No. 298 of 2012, P.S.- Mangalpur, District- Kanpur Dehat on the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court by which learned trial Court has summoned the revisionist.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the victim is major and she went with co-accused Sunil @ Puttan at several places; that during investigation the I.O. examined several witnesses and found that there is no involvement of the revisionist and expunged them; that the revisionist have no concern with the alleged incident except being the relative of co-accused Sunil @ Puttan; that according to the evidence available on record no offence under Section 363/366 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists.

Learned AGA has opposed the argument raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that the impugned order dated 27.01.2015 was rightly passed.

I have very carefully examined the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. After examining the materials available on record, I find that no case is made out for interference by this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

Counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. There is also no abuse of court's process perceptible in the same which appears to have been passed after due application of judicial mind. The ratio and obiter as laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, does not appear to have been ignored in this case. The aforesaid judgment in fact lay down very clearly that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by Court against a person not named in First Information Report or no charge sheet is filed by police against him and the accused can be summoned only on the basis of examination-in-chief of witness and need not wait for cross-examination etc. With regard to degree of satisfaction of Court for summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., Court has said that test are same as applicable for framing charge.

Needless to state that in the eventuality of surrendering and moving bail application by the revisionist before competent Court of Jurisdiction, the Court below shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, considering all aspects of the matter.

In view of the above conspectus, I find no merits in the instant revision. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order in question which is hereby affirmed and the instant revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.4.2022

Fhd