Allahabad High Court
Pooja vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240900
Court No. - 81
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6579 of 2023
Petitioner :- Pooja
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhakar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Sudhakar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against private respondent nos. 2 and 3, challenging the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the court of revision in criminal revision no. 35 of 2023, by which the order of the Judicial Magistrate summoning the respondents was set aside and the Magistrate was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the parties and to pass a fresh order, in the light of the observations made in the order of the revision.
3. The contentions of the petitioner are that the Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case for summoning the accused (the respondents herein) under sections 323, 504 and 354-ka IPC is made out and passed the summoning order in complaint case no. 230 of 2021 filed by the petitioner. But the revisional court went beyond its jurisdiction and gave a finding which was not supported by the evidence on record. The revisional court set aside the order passed by the trial court in an arbitrary manner.
4. The contentions of the petitioner are repudiated by the learned AGA, bringing before me certain facts as below:-
The applicant filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegation that at about 09.30 in the morning of 05.06.2021, when she was going to collect the manure, the accused Mahesh Prasad and his son Yashodanandan @ Bahadur suddenly came before her and started hurling abuses on her. When she protested, they chased the applicant till she reached her house and rushed inside. She was followed and physically assaulted by them by using 'lathi-danda', and she was disrobed. The application further said that her uncle Suresh Chand came but the accused persons threatened him and other members of the family by showing a country made pistol.
She said that at the time of the incident, her parents were not around.
The contention of the learned AGA is that though the Magistrate, on the basis of the statement given under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the accused persons, however some of the material facts as noticed by the court of revision, were pointed out; the revisional court passed the order giving good reasons. Further the petitioner shall have ample opportunity to give her point of view on the matters in issue, therefore the order of the court of revision cannot be faulted.
5. I went through all the material on record. The learned court of revision took into consideration this fact that before this application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved, the applicant/the complainant's father and real uncle were already facing a criminal case crime no. 262 of 2021 under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, which was lodged by wife of the accused no. 1-Mahesh Prasad. It may be noted that one of the named accused Suresh Chand (her uncle) and Sarvesh (her father) were named in the FIR. Learned revisional court also noticed certain discrepancies and contradictions in the statements given by the witnesses. In my view such observations cannot said to be perverse or unconnected. This is settled position of law that the Judicial Magistrate is not expected to pass an order of summoning in cursory or casual manner. He cannot believe a story just because it has been told by the complainant and the witnesses. He has to apply his judicial mind to find substance and to feel satisfied before proceeding to summon the accused persons. The law on this point has been succinctly elaborated in a judgment given by the Supreme Court in Pepsi Food Limited and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others; (1998) 5 SCC 749.
6. Moreover, the revisional court, after giving its observations on some material aspects of the matter, has simply directed the learned trial court below to reconsider and pass a fresh order keeping in mind the observations made by itself, therefore, obviously the complainant has an opportunity to give her side of story before the trial court once again.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the petition, hence it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2023
#Vikram/-
