Amarnath Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 21723 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Amarnath Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 July, 2024

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107683
 
Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6466 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Amarnath Singh And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Tiwari,Ramesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amarnath Tripathi,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Applicants before this Court are aggrieved by impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. whereby they have been summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and relevant part thereof is quoted below :-

"????????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????, ?????, ?????? ??????, ????? ????? ?? ?????? ????, ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??.??.???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? FIR ????? ?????? ??.??.???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????/- ??? ?? ??? ????? FIR ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ? ????? ??? ??,??,???/- ???? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?????, ??????, ?????, ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ? ??? ?????? ? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?????

??? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????, ?????? ????, ????? ????, ????? ???, ????? ?????, ????? ?????? ? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ???? ???, ???, ???, ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???"

2. Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for applicants submits that there was a dispute in regard to financial transaction, an FIR was lodged on basis of alleged same incident occurred on 07.04.2022 by applicants side against complainants side wherein after investigation a charge sheet was filed, which is under challenge before this Court in other proceedings and subsequently proceedings were initiated giving a different version of occurrence occurred on 07.04.2022 as well as on basis of alleged occurrence occurred on 17.04.2022. Trial Court has disbelieved certain part of statement of complainant and witnesses. There were allegations in regard to theft or robbery. He also refers few paragraphs of application which are quoted below :-

"6. That by means of the present application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. the applicants are challenging the impugned summoning order dated 25.07.2023 as well as entire proceeding of the complaint case no. 1367 of 2022 (Sandhya Singh Vs. Amarnath Singh and others), Under Section 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station-Bhelupur, District Varanasi, pending in Additional the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC-I Varanasi. A true as well as certified copy of the impugned summoning order dated 25.07.2023 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.

7. That some dispute is going on between the applicant nos.1 to 3 to the husband of the opposite party no.2 as the arazi no.50/1 rakba 2603 sq.feet, rakba 2256 total area 4800 sq. feet concerned with the applicants as they are the owners of the land, the opposite party no.2 proposed to develop the land and contacted the applicants and stated about the development proposed in his mind. In this sequence an agreement entered between the parties, according to which, the opposite party no.2 shall construct multiplex flats and shall sell the same. As per the agreement when the procedure will be completed and it was the liability of opposite party no.2 to take all the legal steps for constructing the flats, the applicants have no mean over the same and in agreement it is agreed that when the flats will be completed same shall be sold and 60% of the sale amount will be taken by the applicants and 40% of the sale amount shall be taken by the opposite party no.2.

8. That as per the agreement, the applicants have no mean about the construction of the flats and the procedure adopted therein in construction and the construction started by the opposite party no.2, according to him, he obtained all type of no objection certificate from the Varanasi Development Authority, in the permission sometime has been fixed by the authority concern."

3. Aforesaid submissions are opposed by Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and submits that at this stage, this Court has to scrutinize that whether impugned order has assigned reasons that there are sufficient ground to proceed.

4. It is a case arising out of complaint case wherein impugned order has been passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. It would be relevant to place few paragraphs of Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 :-

"38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 which reads thus:

"51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused.

52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.""

5. In aforesaid circumstances, I have carefully perused the impugned order wherein trial Court has referred contents of complaint, statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. which are consistent to the fact that applicants have entered into house of complainant and assaulted persons of complainant side which are corroborated by statement of other witnesses. Trial Court has also assigned reasons that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against applicants.

6. In aforesaid circumstances and in the light of Lalankumar (supra), I do not find any ground to invoke inherent powers of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants want to appear before trial Court, therefore, some appropriate direction be passed.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has no objection if such prayer is considered.

9. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with an observation that in case applicants appear before trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today and if they file bail application, the trial Court will take all endeavour to consider and decide the same in accordance with law taking note of judgment of Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

10. Non bailable warrants issued against applicants shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today and in case of default, trial Court will be at liberty to execute the same.

Order Date :- 3.7.2024

N. Sinha