Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1752 of 2019 Revisionist :- Chhatrapal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sachin Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 21.1.2019 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Fast Track Court, Sambhal situated at Chandausi in Complaint Case No. 24 of 2018 (Computerized No. 03/2019) (Chhatrapl Singh vs. Smt. Majharul Islam & others), whereby complaint filed by revisionist has been rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
Contention is that in this case, the court below virtually decided the entire case on its face value by unnecessary analysis of facts threadbare and decided the complaint of the revisionist on presumption and conjecture. Such presumptive approach cannot be termed as correct approach, while considering a complaint only on point of summoning. Only a prima-facie case was required to be looked into and the entire incident was not expected to be scrutinized by entering into roving inquiry, like the present one.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that revisionist had got a cause for false implication. He was physical instructor at the school of the respondent nos.2 to 6 and his term of employment was not recommended to be extended and as such the applicant had ulterior motive to pressurise the respondent nos.2 to 6 to come to terms and to ensure extension of his renewal as physical instructor. Further, the learned Additional Session Judge has exhaustively dealt with law and fact and has rightly recorded finding that a judge is not expected to act mechanically but the impossibilities inherent in the alleged act is also to be considered while considering the incident on the basis of law and fact as alleged. Moreover, if a number of persons are beating a single man after over powering him, there is every likelihood of some sort of injury being caused to the person concerned, giving credence to the claim raised by that person, which aspect of this case is also missing altogether. The order impugned on the face is fair, consistent and based on sound reasoning. The same is sustained.
Also considered the rival submissions.
Obviously bare perusal of the order is indicative of fact that entire factual aspect and the very occurrence alleged have been duly considered by the court below and right conclusion has been drawn and it is no denying fact that the revisionist had false motive to pressurise the respondents to create atmosphere for renewal of his extension as a physical instructor of the School.
Consequently, no interference is required. The order impugned dated 21.1.2019 is sustained.
In view of above, the instant revision is dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 S Rawat