Allahabad High Court
Yashodhara vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 27 April, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 49
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1873 of 2023
Petitioner :- Yashodhara
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjeet Asthana
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anup Dhar Dubey
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ranjeet Asthana, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Anup Dhar Dubey, the learned counsel represent respondents 2 to 9.
2. Perused the record.
3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by complainant-petitioner challenging the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2021 (Durgesh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) whereby aforementioned criminal revision arising out of summoning order dated 20.08.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C.-I, Maharajganj has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the concerned Magistrate for decision afresh.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that order impugned in present petition is manifestly illegal and arbitrary and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.
5. It is further submitted that order of remand passed by revisional court is vague and therefore, same is unsustainable in law.
6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Anup Dhar Dubey, the learned counsel representing respondents 2 to 9 have opposed the present petition. They submit that in view of inherent contradictions in the statements of the complainant as recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses as recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the prima-facie satisfaction recorded by court below for summoning the accused was found to be erroneous. In view of above, no illegality has been committed by court below in setting aside the summoning order and remanding the order before court below for decision afresh. The revisional court has acted within the parameter of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C inasmuch as, it has not given it's own findings. To buttress his submission, they have referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Others Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 and on basis thereof, they submit that summoning of an accused is not to be done lightly. On the above premise, they vehemently contend that present petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.
8. As a result, present petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2023
Vinay
