Court No. - 68
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2225 of 2019
Petitioner :- Jai Narayan And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikram Singh
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 30.08.2018 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M. Jalesar, Etah in complaint case no. 167 of 2017 (Chandra Pal Singh Vs. Jay Narayan and others) under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC. He further prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 181 of 2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the court below has summoned the petitioners without applying its judicial mind and without considering the entire facts and material on record. He further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. Against the order dated 30.8.2018 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Jalesar, Etah, the petitioners have filed revision bearing No. 181 of 2018 before the Sessions Judge Etah. The revisional court also dismissed the revision without considering the fact that the court below has passed the order without taking into consideration the entire material available on record. The Revisional Court has not appreciated the evidence that the magistrate has committed a manifest error while passing the summoning order. The revision has also been dismissed without applying its judicial mind.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the orders passed by the respective courts are illegal contrary to the statute and, therefore, deserve to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that the orders passed by the Magistrate dated 30.08.2018 and revisional court order dated 27.02.2019 after considering the entire material on record, facts and circumstances of the case. At the stage of summoning the Magistrate has only to see whether the sufficient material is available on record to summon the suspected accused in that very case.
In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has recorded the prima facie satisfaction that there is sufficient material on record to issue summons against the petitioners. Both the courts below have not committed any manifest error in passing the respective orders.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The revisional court as well as the Magistrate while passing the orders have considered each and every aspect of the case. The revisional court has scrutnised the order of the Magistrate but did not find any error in the order passed by the Magistrate.
After concluding the argument, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the petitioners are ready to surrender before the court below within some time specified by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. did not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that if the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the petitioners be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Manish Tripathi