Allahabad High Court
Anantram And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40866 of 2022
Applicant :- Anantram And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Salman Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Shri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, and Shri Hari Prasad Gupta, learned A.G.A who appears for the State.
This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the summoning order dated 18.8.2022 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, Orai in complaint Case No. 2101/2018 Kajiv Kumar Vs. Anantram and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Ait, District- Jalaun and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2101, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai.
Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that a First Information Report was lodged by the O.P No. 2 on 15.11.2013 with respect to commission of the offence on 29.9.2013 against the applicants under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 506 IPC with an allegation that the applicants administered beating and hurled abuses with respect to a trivial issue of movement of cattle.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that in the said case a final report was lodged on 16.11.2013 taking into note the fact that the applicant no. 1 had already lodged an NCR No. 39 of 2013, under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC against the complainant faction.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the said Final Report was not, promptly, challenged by the filing the protest petition. Learned counsel for the applicants has next contended that the O.P. 2, while setting up his mother Smt. Dhanwanti Devi got a complaint lodged which was registered as Complaint No. 11 of 2014, Smt. Dhanwanti Devi vs. Anantram and others with an allegation that on 2.4.2014, offences were committed, however, the said complaint stood rejected on 09.02.2015 by Special Judge (Dacoiti Affected Area), Jalaun at Orai).
Learned counsel fot the applicants has further argued that after such a long time, now, a protest petition had been filed against the submission of the final report dated 16.11.2013 in the year 2016, in which, on 19.11.2018, an order was passed by the court below treating it to be a complaint case. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 30.11.2018 which traveled in a revision filed by the O.P. No. 2 wherein the matter was remanded back on 29.5.2019 and now, the summons have been issued on 18.8.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicants thus submits that the entire exercise undertaken by the O.P. No. 2 is a malafide exercise just in order to falsely implicate and rope in the applicants. He further submits that there was no occasion for the applicants to commit said offence particularly when, there was no challenge made to the final report submitted in favour of the applicants and in between another complaint was filed, which stood rejected.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the application, while contending that seeing the nature of the injuries so sustained by the complainant faction which is apparent from Pages 43 and 44 of the paper book, it reveals that the investigation conducted by the I.O. was towards wrong direction tilting in favour of the applicants faction, and once such inherent defect came to the knowledge then it was set right by passing the summoning order.
I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In my opinion, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant does not indicate that there is any jurisdiction error committed by the court below while summoning the applicants. More so, the remand order was not put to challenge. Nonetheless, this court further finds that summons have been issued and the applicants are at liberty to put forward their stand including their defence, whatever is available, along with the legal and the factual pleas, in that regard when the trial commences. More so, this court cannot go into the factual aspects in view of the judgment in the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192.
Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed and consigned to record, leaving it open to applicants to seek to prefer appropriate application before the court below, which shall be considered in accordance with law as per the law of the land taking into the factual aspects of the case.
Order Date :- 15.12.2022
N.S.Rathour
