Allahabad High Court
Roop Lal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 May, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116861
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2666 of 2023
Revisionist :- Roop Lal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhaiya Ram Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate holding brief for Sri Bhaiya Ram Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, Brief-holder and perused the record.
2. The revisionist has challenged the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, (Dacoity Affected Area), Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. (Complaint) No. 29 of 2020 (Rooplal vs. Raval Singh and Others), by which the learned trial court dismissed the complaint under the provisions of Section 203 Cr.P.C.
3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are that the instant revisionist-complainant filed a complaint against four persons under Sections 395, 397, 427, 500, 504, 506 IPC with the allegations in nutshell that earlier on the basis of the first information given by the other side, the instant complainant faced a trial special case no. 84 of 2006 which culminated into acquittal; the revisionist, therefore, gave a notice for obtaining compensation for false implication; it is stated therein that annoyed by such notice, the opposite side assaulted him, snatched his old mobile and also removed Rs. 500/- kept in his pocket and tore his clothes; the complaint case proceeded; the complainant and his witnesses were examined under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; the trial court thereafter heard the complainant on the point of summoning and arrived at a finding that no prima facie case is made out and dismissed the same under Section 203 Cr.P.C.; now the complainant is before this court in this revision.
4. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned order is perverse, illegal and improper; the complainant proved his prima facie case by adducing his own evidence as well as the evidence of certain eye-witnesses; the learned trial court has passed the order ignoring the evidence on record; the impugned has been passed on conjunctures, hence the order must be set aside.
5. In Criminal Appeal No. 9188 of 2022 (Dr. Divya Nand Yadav And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 20.04.2023, the High Court with regard to rejection of complaint under Section 203 discussed the importance of conducting an inquiry in the manner as provided under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and also dealt with the meaning of the phrase used in Section 204 Cr.P.C. The court in para-10 held as below:-
"10. There cannot be two opinions on the settled legal position that the Magistrate has to decide whether prima facie any case is made out or not, before proceeding to summon the accused persons. The meaning of prima facie case must be understood in the right perspective. There may be cases where the Magistrate finds that in literal sense of the words occurring in the statements the ingredients of an offence are there but he feels not so satisfied with them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-11 of the judgment passed in Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra and Another; (2013) 14 SCC 44, observed as below:-
"At the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to "prima facie satisfy" whether there are "sufficient grounds to proceed" against the accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint."
The Supreme Court has used the pharse arriving at "prima facie satisfaction" whether there are "sufficient grounds to proceed"! Section 204 Cr.P.C. nowhere said that the Magistrate shall take cognizance and summon the accused if prima facie case is made out, instead Section 204 Cr.P.C. says that the Magistrate may take cognizance if there is sufficient ground for proceeding, hence in my view the prima facie case must be construed to mean "prima facie satisfaction" arrived at by the Magistrate. In other words the Magistrate shall proceed only if he finds that there is sufficient ground for the same. This is not to say that the proposed accused shall have any right to be heard at that stage or that any evidence in defence can be considered. It merely means that the Magistrate shall assess all the material before it and apply its mind to find out whether time has come to proceed and take cognizance. In that view of the matter the Supreme Court in the case as aforesaid has instead of using the word "prima facie case" has found fit to use the phrase "prima facie satisfaction" and of course this satisfaction has to be arrived at while acting within the four corners of law i.e., by adopting the procedure as provided under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In may view, the Magistrate is not powerless to examine the truth or falsehood of the case made in the complaint. And to fully utilize this power the Magistrate has to play its role of examining himself the complaint and his witnesses under Sections 200 Cr.P.C., and if required to further inquire into by calling more witnesses and examining them or even by ordering investigation. The steering wheel of the inquiry cannot be left at the hands of the complainant. For the reason that at that stage, the accused has no say in the matter and the court has no opportunity to hear the other side, therefore he ought to remain very cautious, circumspect and alert. The broad probabilities or improbabilities of the story of course may be seen at this stage."
6. The learned trial court did not find sufficient grounds to proceed and therefore by application of judicial mind rightly dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 Cr.P.C. I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order, therefore, this criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.5.2023
#Vikram/-
