Reserved
Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1467 of 1993 Revisionist :- Arvind @ Pappu Opposite Party :- State And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Veer Singh,B.N. Singh,Radheshyam Yadav (A/C),Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. This criminal revision has been filed against the summoning order dated 20.04.1993 passed by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Case Crime No. 449 of 1993 (Ram Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar).
2. I have heard Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae, for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.
3. Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, Learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of revisionist, Arvind @ Pappu, contended that summoning order dated 20.04.1993 under Sections 392 & 506 I.P.C. against the revisionist is illegal and void. Because the facts available on record was insufficient to summon the revisionist. It is further contended that opposite party no. 2 has filed an application upon instigation of Manager of Suraj Takis in which the opposite party no. 2 was simply an employee. He further contended that revisionist has enmity with Manager of Suraj Takis and due to this enmity on behest of the Manager, revisionist was harassed by opposite party no. 2. He further contended that there is no such offence is made out against the revisionist so summoning order dated 20.04.1993 passed against the revisionist may be quashed.
4. Court below after taking the consideration of statement of opposite party no. 2, Ram Singh, and evidence adduced under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on considering the evidence produced by opposite party no. 2 and its witnesses, summoned the revisionist, Arvind @ Pappu, under Sections 392 & 506 I.P.C. Generally no revision lies against the summoning order. There is no prejudice shown by the revisionist. Learned court below has rightly passed the aforesaid summoning order and court below has passed the summoning order after full appreciation of evidence available on record and has rightly exercised its jurisdiction to summon the revisionist. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the order of court below and revision is being devoid of merit, liable to be dismissed.
5. Revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. Interim order, if any, shall vacate forthwith.
7. The office is directed to transmit back lower court record with a copy of judgment and order of this Court for immediate compliance.
8. Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae for the revisionist is entitled to get his fee of Rs. 7,000/- for assisting the court.
Order Date:-28.02.2019 Vibha Singh