Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5668 of 2010 Revisionist :- Fatima Begum And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Prashant Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1. None is present for the revisionists. Heard learned AGA and perused the record. The revision is being decided on merit.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred by Fatima Begum, Ifraj alias Chhuttan, Nanhi Begum, Raees and Laeeque against State of U.P. and Nahid Akhtar assailing judgment and order dated 8.10.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hawali, Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No. 186 of 2010 (Nahid vs. Ifraj and others) thereby accused revisionists have been summoned under section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
3. Revisionists submitted in memo of revision that revisionist Nos. 1,2 & 3 are wife, father-in-law & mother-in-law of opposite party No.2. Revisionist Nos. 4 and 5 are brother-in-laws of opposite party No. 2. Revisionist earlier filed complaint under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC against opposite party No.2 and his family members in which they were summoned. Revisionist No. 1 also filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. against opposite party No.2 and in that case notice was issued against opposite party No.2. Hence the present case is counter blast case.
4. Learned AGA submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned summoning order.
5. From perusal of record, it transpires that one complaint was filed and under section 200 Cr.P.C. statement of Nahid and under section 202 Cr.P.C. statements of Mohd. Enam, Munna @ Munney have been recorded. After perusal of injury report and other documents, impugned order was passed and revisionists were summoned under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Hence no interference is called for in the impugned summoning order.
6. Section 203 Cr.P.C. and 204 Cr.P.C. are quoted hereunder for ready reference.
"Section 203 Cr.P.C.. Dismissal of complaint. If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing."
"Section 204 Cr.P.C.. Issue of process.
(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-
(a) a summons- case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or
(b) a warrant- case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub- section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.
(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing every summons or warrant issued under sub- section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.
(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process- fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87."
7. According to Section 203 Cr.P.C., Magistrate can dismiss the complaint after recording statement of complainant and witnesses and result of inquiry or investigation. Magistrate has power under section 204 Cr.P.C. to issue summon or warrant as the case may be.
8. Moreover, in the case of Jancy Nelson D'Souza v. Nel D' Souza, 2004 Crl 1690(1692)(Bom), Bombay High Court has held that at the time of taking cognizance of the complaint presented before a Magistrate, the Magistrate has to deal with the said complaint in view of the allegations made in the complaint itself and he has to find out whether, prima facie offence has been spelt out. At that stage it is not necessary for him to make a detailed enquiry touching niceties.
9. In the case of Jia Lal Sharma vs. State , 1982 Crl.J. 1913(Del) the Delhi High Court has held that for the issue of process against the accused it has to be only seen whether prima facie case has been made out.
10. In the case of Parsoon Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P., 1999 Crl. J 3375( All), this Court has held that where allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose alleged offences, summoning order is justified.
11. In the case of Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 1921, Apex Court has held that at the time of issuing process, the Magistrate has to determine whether the material placed before it, is sufficient for proceeding against the accused. The term 'sufficient to proceed' is different and distinct from the terms' sufficient to prove and establish guilt'. At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously as if it was the trial Court nor is he required to scrutinize the evidence by the same standard by which the trial Court scrutinizes the evidence at the stage of framing charge.
12. In the case of Anil Saran vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 204, the Court has held that the defence open to the accused is not to be seen at the time of issuance of process.
13. In this case, summoning order has been passed in accordance with law. The revisionists have opportunity to place evidence before the Trial Court at appropriate stage.
14. However, it is observed that in case revisionists surrender and apply for bail within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionists.
15. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the revisionists to surrender before the court concerned.
16. The revision is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
17. Copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 P.P.