Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And 3 ... on 6 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34835
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3206 of 2024
Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Krishna Kumar with the following prayers:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed by Session Judge, Faizabad, in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 2023 namely 'Krishna Kumar vs. State of U.P.', under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and impugned order dated 05.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-III/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Complaint Case No. 111 of 2021 (Krishna Kumar vs. Gangaram), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.;
(b). Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party no.2 to register the first information report on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and investigate the case;
(c). Any other order, or direction ................
(d). Allow the writ petition ................................"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court as well as the revisional court has committed manifest illegality in rejecting the submissions made by the petitioner/complainant as at first an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner was treated as 'complaint' and despite production of sufficient evidence before the trial court the complaint has been rejected under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. and when a revision was filed against the same, the revisional court has not considered the evidence produced before the trial court in right perspective and has passed the judgment on 'surmises and conjectures'.
4. It is vehemently submitted that it was proved on record that money has been paid to the agency by the petitioner and the tractor has been registered in the name of the respondent no.3. Thus, it was imperative for the trial court to have summoned the respondent no.4 to face trial under relevant provisions.
5. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that as per the own version of the petitioner/complainant, the incident is of the year 2013. He became aware of the fact that despite payment of money by him the vehicle has been registered in the name of some other person in the year 2018 and the application to the Superintendent of Police concerned has been moved admittedly in the year 2021 and this factual matrix throws a cloud of suspicion over the whole prosecution story and there is no illegality or to say any irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record and keeping in view the order intended to be passed, the issuance of notice to the respondent no.3 and 4 is hereby dispensed with.
7. It is evident from the record that at first the trial court has taken the cognizance of the offences on an application moved by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and treated the same as complaint case and after recording of the statement of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by passing the impugned order of date 05.04.2023 was of the view that some transaction has been made between the parties, however, it is not evident for what purpose and object this monetary transaction has been done and has rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The revisional court having regard to the evidence produced by the trial court did not find any illegality or to say any irregularity in the impugned orders and dismissed the revision preferred by the complainant/petitioner.
8. It is to be recalled as has been emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that summoning of an accused to face criminal trial is a serious business and a duty is caste on the concerned magistrate/court to pay due regard to the allegations levelled against the proposed accused persons and it is only when sufficient grounds are available, a person should be called to face criminal trial, as even if the proposed accused person is acquitted after facing agony of long trial, the same would also leave a scar on his reputation and, therefore, the duty of the trial court while summoning an accused person is to pay due regard to the evidence/material produced before it in the background of the settled principles. Thus, it is not so that by recording the statement of himself/herself and by producing two witnesses without adverting to the probabilities and sufficient grounds the proposed accused persons must be summoned, in each and every complaint case.
9. Having gone through the impugned orders in the background of the material placed before the trial court, having regard to the duration for which the complainant/petitioner has remained silent and has not taken any initiative by moving any application, etc. against the accused person and keeping in view the reasoning given by the trial court while rejecting the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., I do not find any illegality therein.
10. Thus, for the reasons mentioned herein-above, I do not find force in the petition and the same is dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 6.5.2024
Praveen
