Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3411 of 2021 Applicant :- Deep Shikha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sundeep Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Ishraque Farooqui
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Sundeep Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Ishraque Farooqui, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4 and learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash summoning order dated 09.12.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Muzaffar Nagar in Complaint Case No.345 of 2019 (Deep Shikha Versus Mohd. Ibran alias Imran and others) under Sections 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 P. S.-Nai Mandi, District- Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging F.I.R. against opposite party nos. 2 to 4 which was treated as a complaint case. Thereafter, statement of the victim and her witnesses was recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.Learned Magistrate, after considering the complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 09.12.2020 summoned the opposite party no.2 only to face trial under Sections 406 and 506 I.P.C. and left other accused i.e. opposite party nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that from perusal of entire record offences Sections 376, 313, 406 and 506 I.P.C. are made out against the accused person and learned Magistrate without assigning any reason, summoned only accused, opposite party no.2 under Sections 406 and 506 I.P.C. He has next argued that complainant in her complaint and statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that applicant had committed offences under Sections 376 and 313 I.P.C., still in the impugned summoning order, the same have been left out. It is further argued that the prosecution has successfully led cogent evidence that from the very inception the accused had no intention to marry the victim and that he had mala fide motives and had made false promise only to satisfy the lust. But for the false promise by the accused to marry the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix would not have given the consent to have the physical relationship. It was a clear case of cheating and deception. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has also placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anurag Soni versus State of Chhattishgarh in Criminal Appeal No.629 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.618 of 2019. Therefore, impugned summoning order may be quashed by this Court and learned Magistrate may be directed to pass fresh summoning order in aforesaid complaint, after looking into entire record placed before it.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the prayer of the applicant. They have submitted that learned Magistrate has rightly summoned opposite party no.2 under Sections 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and left out opposite party nos. 3 and 4. Thus the impugned summoning order does not warrant any interference by this Court in invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of above discussion, this application under 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 09.12.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Muzaffar Nagar in aforesaid case is quashed. The learned Magistrate concerned is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders of summoning for the offences under relevant Sections of Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 MN/-