Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2492 of 2021 Revisionist :- Bhola @ Vishal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the state-respondents.
This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.04.2021 passed Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, in S.T. No.81 of 2019 (State vs. Rajendra Singh) arising out of case crime no678 of 2016 U/s 323/34, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Phephna, District Ballia.
Learned counsel for revisionist contended that revisionist was named in the FIR but during investigation, it was found that he was not present on the spot. He is the resident of other district- Mau. On the basis of statements of independent witnesses, the name of revisionist was exonerated in investigation and no charge-sheet was submitted. Learned counsel also contended that the FIR of this case has been lodged as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the family of the revisionist. Learned counsel further contended that the trial court without going into the facts and appreciating the entire material, has passed the impugned order of summoning which is erroneous and illegal. Learned counsel also contended that as per latest pronouncement by Hon'ble Apex Court, the totality of the circumstances, has to be considered by the learned trial court at the time of summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., but the learned trial court failed to appreciate these aspects of law and passed the summoning order in a routine manner. The impugned order is arbitrary and illegally and is not sustainable in the eye of law. The revisionist is innocent and has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated due to malicious and ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that revisionist-accused was made accused in the FIR and complainant/ injured in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. has corroborated the allegations made in the FIR and has specifically named him with an active role but the Investigating Officer due to extraneous reasons has exonerated him. During the trial of the proceedings, the complainant has produced two witnesses who have corroborated the prosecution version and has stated that the revisionist-accused was also involved in the incident. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial court has passed the impugned summoning order. The impugned summoning order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
It appears that regarding the incident dated 17.08.2016, two cross FIR have been lodged, one from the side of the opposite party no.2 and the other from the revisionist's side. Revisionist- accused was named in the FIR, in case no.678 of 2016, U/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 & 506 IPC. There was specific allegations and role assigned to him. The Investigating Officer has exonerated his name on the basis of statement of some witnesses. During trial, after framing of charge, two witnesses have been produced by the prosecution. Thereafter an application U/s 319 Cr.P.C was moved by the complainant to summon the accused (revisionist). The learned trial court by the impugned order dated 03.04.2021 has summoned the revisionist-accused to face trial for offence U/s 323/34, 504 and 506 IPC. The impugned order is detailed and reasoned. It has description of the evidence which has been led before trial court and satisfied by it and finding that there is sufficient materials, the impugned order has been passed. The grounds as taken in this Revision are matter of trial which can be adjudicated after evidence. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the Revision is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the criminal revision is hereby dismissed.
However, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 C. MANI