Reserved
Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1497 of 2005
Revisionist :- Jag Roshan Lal And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. By this criminal revision, revisionists challenged the impugned summoning order dated 21.10.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 4558 of 2004 (Smt. Shalini Versus Sa- tayavir and others) under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 I.P.C. read with Sec- tion 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Brief facts of this revision is that respondent no. 2 was married with the younger brother of the revisionist no. 1, Satyavir about in April, 1996. Respon- dent no. 2 filed a complaint case under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against all the revisionists as well as against the husband, Satyavir. After examination of respondent no. 2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and under Section 202 Cr.P.C., Gopal and Smt. Sushila were examined as witnesses. After examination of these witnesses, summoning order was passed against the revisionists. Being aggrieved with the summoning order, this revision has been filed.
3. I have heard Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal, advocate, holding brief of Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties.
4. Main contention of the revisionists is that revisionist no. 1 serving in BHEL (Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited) since 31.12.1970 to January, 1998 in Haridwar thereafter in 1998 he was transfer to Banglore and he was still working at Banglore. In support of their contention learned counsel for the revisionists submitted the Ration Card and certificate of BHEL. It is also argued that revisionists nos. 1, 2 & 3 is Jaith of respondent no. 2 and revision- ist nos. 4, 5 & 6 are Jethani of respondent no. 2.
5. Bare perusal of the complaint shows that atrocity took place at Yamuna Nagar, Haryana and Court of Saharanpur has no territorial jurisdiction. Revisionists are residing separately from the husband of respondent no. 2, who was residing in Yamuna Nagar, Haryana for the past more than ten years. Except revisionist no. 1 all of them were living at village Mohandpur, Police Station Gurukul, District Haridwar, Uttaranchal. All the family members are maliciously dragged after nine years of marriage. All the revisionists have no concerned with the family affairs of opposite party no. 2 and Satyavir so they are requested to set aside the impugned order dated 21.10.2004. Learned counsel for the revisionists relied on the judgment of Apex Court Geeta Malhotra Versus State of U.P. & Another in Criminal Appeal No. 1674 of 2012 (Supreme Court). That there is a tendency to involve the family members of the house in domestic quarrel taking place in matrimonial dispute. But their names and contents of First Information Report did not disclose their active involvement. Cognizance on matter against them would not justified.
6. Learned A.G.A. for the opposite part no.1/State contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the abovesaid order and also argued that summon- ing of the revisionists-accused is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against the interlocutory order.
7. I have perused the record and gone through the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble High Court in Geeta Malhotra and Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741. On perusing the summoning order dated 21.10.2004, it is crystal clear that incident took place at Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, where the husband of opposite party no. 2 was working in a factory. It is also appears that no incident had been occurred at Saharanpur. In revision petition, revisionist no. 1 produced the ration card as well as certificate of BHEL given by Deputy General Manager (HR). In this certificate it was mentioned that revisionist no. 1 was working in BHEL from 01.12.1988 to 08.01.2015, which is the date of issuing the certificate.
8. One of the main controversy regarding this revision petition is that whether the summoning of the revisionists/accused is an interlocutory order or a final order. Section 397 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code provides that no re- vision lies against the interlocutory order. In Poonam Chand Jain Versus Fazary 2005 (1) LSP Page 58 SC, 2. Subramanyam Seth Raman Versus State of Maharashtra and Others 2004 6 SCC 622, 3. Adalat Prasad Roop Lal Jindal and Others (2004) 7 SCC 338, three Judges Bench, Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that a summoning order passed by Magistrate in a complaint case is an interlocutory order and criminal revision against such in- terlocutory order /summoning order is not maintaining under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code. The remedy of the revisionists/accused against the summoning order passed by the Magistrate in complaint case is a petition un- der Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court. In many cases Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Court held that summoning order is an interlocutory order. The subject of intermidiatory order was illustrated in Madhulimaye Versus State of Maharashtra 1977 4 (SCC) 551 by contradis- tinguished a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down by principle that an intermidiatory order is one which is interlocutory in nature but reverse it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. An order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an ac- cused and an order for framing charge, are intermediate orders. Prima facie, these orders are interlocutory in nature but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed it is the effect of terminating the pro- ceeding against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. There- fore an intermediate order is one which is passed in certain way the proceeding is terminated but it passed in another way the proceeding would continue. So in my considered opinion, in this case summoning the revisionists/accused is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against the order of summoning the re- visionists/accused under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 I.P.C. read with Sec- tion 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
9. Revisionist's counsel contended that when Magistrate passing the summoning order no reason recorded by Magistrate to summoning the accused and also contended that no specific allegation made against the revisionist. In determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reason. There is no legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate or passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to the accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. Learned counsel for the revisionists mostly submitted that his case is squarely covered in Geeta Malhotra and Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra) but the fact of the above said judgment is not squarely covered in this revision. In, Geeta Malhotra and Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra), appellant approaches to Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of special leave. Leave was granted to the appellant against the order passed by High Court Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. So the judgment of Geeta Malhotra and Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra) is not applicable in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.
10. The object of the provision of revision is set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or a law. There has to be a well founded error and it may not be appropriate for the Court to scrutinize the orders which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appeared to be in accordance with law. Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenged are grossly erroneous. There is no compliance with the provisions of law, the findings recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised so as to examine the correctness legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial Court or the inferior Court as the case may be.
11. One of the argument placed by the revisionists is that the offence has taken place at Jammu Nagar, Haryana and a fake incident at Saharanpur was mentioned therein to usurp the jurisdiction and to harass the entire family. As Saharanpur Court has no territorial jurisdiction argument of the revisionist is vague. Under Section 178 of Criminal Procedure Code held that where an offence is continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one then anyone of said Court have jurisdiction to proceed with trial. So the Saharanpur Court has rightly exercised their jurisdiction and no illegality committed in this regard.
12. On aforesaid discussions, it appears that any point of defence regarding separate living of revisionist and of other circumstances may be raised at the trial stage. Efficacious remedy is available to the revisionist under Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the revisionists after perusing the evidence of complainant and witnesses prima facie case is made out against the revisionists. There is no illegality or irregularity regarding summoning order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. Hence, revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, revision is dismissed.
14. Stay order, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
Order Date :. 31-01-2019 Vibha Singh