Allahabad High Court
Hari Shankar And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 380 of 2015
Revisionist :- Hari Shankar And Ors.
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anoop Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Gonda in Complaint Case No.97 of 2012 by which the revisionists have been summoned to face trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate for getting an F.I.R. registered against the revisionists and some other persons which came to be treated as a complaint by learned trial Court. His further submission is that on the basis of content of application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as a complaint and also the statements of complainant as well as his witnesses, namely, Kamni Prasad and Ramtej recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., no offence under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. is made out and accordingly, summoning order cannot be sustained.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that on the basis of the aforesaid statements, the impugned order dated 02.04.2015 was passed by the learned trial Court whereby the revisionists were directed to be summoned to face trial for offence under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 02.04.2015, the instant criminal revision has been filed mainly on the ground that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order, has not applied its judicial mind and passed the order summoning the revisionists in a routine and casual manner.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial. At this initial stage, the fact of innocence of the revisionists can also not be determined.
Learned A.G.A. further submits that the sufficiency of the material and the test to be applied at the stage of issue of process has been considered in the case of Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2012) 11 SCC 465, wherein it has been reiterated that the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt".
Having heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists. It is trite that at the stage of summoning, no roving inquiry in a detailed discussion of material available on record is required. It should, prima facie, indicate the availability of ingredients constituting offence for which revisionists have been summoned to face trial.
Having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned is decipherable. Therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted.
Accordingly, the instant criminal revision lacks merit which deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.
However, it is made clear that in the eventuality of moving an application for bail by the revisionists before the learned trial Court, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others reported in MANU/SC/1024/ 2021.
Order Date :- 5.8.2022/Mahesh
