Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4131 of 2018 Revisionist :- Abha Rani Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Brij Gopal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 29.9.2018 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (T.E.A. Act), Agra in complaint case no. 23 of 2018 under sections 392 IPC, P.S. Hariparvat, District Agra (Abha Rani Vs. Umapati Ambesh).
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order dated 29.9.2018 passed by the court below is without appreciating the evidence on record, therefore, the court below has committed manifest error of law, which is apparent on the face of record. He further submits that the court below has granted maintenance from the date of application. The reasons must be recorded while passing the order but the court below has not recorded any finding and granted the maintenance from the date of application. The applicant-revisionist (Abha Rani Agrawal) has lodged a first information report on 18.3.2017 against opposite party no.2 under section 392 IPC. After investigation the police has submitted final report in the matter. Against the final report, revisionist has filed protest petition and the court below has rejected the final report and treated the protest petition as a complaint case. After recording the statements under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the court has not found any case made out against opposite party no.2 and hence dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the complaint was rejected by the court below without considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record and further the court below has not taken into consideration the material brought by the revisionist i.e. the statements of the complaint and his witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He further submits that after perusing the statements of the complaint and his witnesses there is clear cut case made out against opposite party no.2.
Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State-respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionist and submitted that the court below has taken into consideration the statement of the complaint and his witnesses, namely, Rajiv Satsangi (P.W.1) and Suresh Singh Parihar (P.W.2) and also perused the evidence produced by them. From the evidence, it was found that no such incident took place as alleged in the complaint or protest application. The opposite party no.2 is 80 years old and therefore, he cannot commit offence as alleged in the complaint, thus, it is nothing but is a malicious prosecution and abuse of process of law. The police has also filed final report after thorough investigation of the matter. The Investigating Officer has not found any material on record against the opposite party no.2.
I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. After perusal of the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no offence under section 392 IPC as alleged in the complaint is made out against opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 is 80 years old and he cannot commit such type of offence as alleged in the complaint. After perusing the material on record, this Court is of the view that the present prosecution is a gross misuse of the process of law and it is nothing but a malicious prosecution. The Magistrate concerned while rejecting the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not committed any illegality, therefore, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record, which warrants interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is
dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Prajapati [Chandra Dhari Singh, J]