Allahabad High Court
Smt. Premlata And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. ... on 21 July, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4721 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Premlata And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Sinha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. Akash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Present petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.12, Raebareli in Criminal Case No.1799 of 2018 by means of which cognizance on Charge-sheet No.156 of 2018 dated 27.06.2018 has been taken and the petitioners have been summoned for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 308 IPC for which charge-sheet was filed.
2. The petitioners aggrieved by the said order challenged the it before the revisional court by filing Criminal Revision No.61 of 2021. However, revisional Court dismissed the said revision vide impugned order dated 12.08.2021. After almost a year from the date of rejection of criminal revision, this petition has been filed impugning order dated 12.08.2021 passed by learned Revisional Court as well as order dated 25.10.2018 passed by learned Magistrate taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners and two other accused to face trial for the offence as mentioned above.
3. The FIR against the petitioners and two others came to be registered on a complaint of Rupesh Kumar, the injured witness under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 308 IPC as FIR No.0205 of 2018 at Police Station Kheero, District Raebareli. It is alleged that four accused named in the FIR on 22.06.2018 at around 3:00 P.M. came to the house of the complainant and assaulted the family members of the complainant using lathi, axe etc. Two family members including the complainant got serious injuries. Their injury reports have been placed on record.
4. As per the medical report of the injured, Rupesh Kumar, the complainant received following injuries in the incident:-
"(i) Lacerated wound of size 3 cm x .5 cm on frontal scalp of 10 cm above from upper part of right ear pinna;
(ii) Lacerated wound of size 2 cm x .5 cm on just above of left eyebrow; and
(iii) Abrasio of size 1 cm x 1.5 cm between index and middle finger of right hand."
5. Other injured Vimlesh Kumar received following injuries:-
Lacerated wound size 4 cm x 1 cm on parital scalp 6 cm above from upper part of left ear pinna;
6. The police after investigating the offence has filed charge-sheet for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 308 IPC and the accused have been summoned.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injury report of the two alleged victims would suggest that no axe was used and the injuries caused to the victims are simple in nature as per the medical report itself. He, therefore, submits that offences under Sections 324, 308 IPC are not made out against the accused. He also submits that learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind before taking cognizance and summoning the accused for offences under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 IPC. He, therefore, submits that the order of taking cognizance and summoning the accused is against the law inasmuch as learned Magistrate failed to apply his judicial mind while taking cognizance and summoning the accused. He furhter submits that revisional court also did not decide the revision in accordance with law as the revisional court has only said that at the time of taking cognizance the evidence available on record were not to be considered minutely. Revisional Court ought to have considered that the offences under Sections 324, 308 IPC are not made out and would have remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order.
8. I have considered the submissions and orders passed by the Courts below.
9. At the time of taking cognizance learned Magistrate has to see the charge-sheet and the evidence collected during the investigation. Learned Magistrate is not required to examine the evidence in detail. There are different stages of a criminal case. After taking cognizance and summoning the accused, next stage comes for framing of the charge and at that stage the Court is required to examine the evidence for a limited purpose to find out whether evidence collected during the course of investigation and material available on record would raise strong suspicion against the accused for commission of the offence or not. At the time of taking cognizance, the Court is not required to go into this aspect of the matter. The court is only required to see whether prima facie the offence is made out or not. The court is required to take cognizance for offences in which charge-sheet has been filed of the prima facie offence s are made out. This court does not find that the two courts below have committed any error of law or jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders and would not like to interfere in the ongoing proceedings particularly after a year from the date of order passed by the learned revisional Court.
10. The petition being devoid of merit and substance is hereby dismissed. However, if the petitioners surrender before the trial Court and apply for regular bail, the trial Court shall consider the bail application of the petitioners expeditiously in accordance with law in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors: SLP(Crl) No.5191 of 2021.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 21.7.2022
prateek
