Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 787 of 1992 Revisionist :- Mahaveer Singh & 2 others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohan Chandra, Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,Vinod Sinha
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for revisionists and learned AGA. Perused the record.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 8.4.1992 passed by 1st Additional Munsif, Chandausi, District Moradabad in Complaint Case No. 586 of 1991(Smt. Padma vs. Mahaveer Singh and others) by which revisionists Mahaveer Singh, Smt. Munisha and Sheoraj Singh have been summoned for the offence punishable under Section 498/109 IPC.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that impugned order is illegal, unwarranted, bad in law and against evidence on record.
Learned AGA opposed the contention of learned counsel for revisionists.
From perusal of record, it transpires that complaint dated 3.6.1991 was filed by Smt. Padma Devi, opposite party No.2 alleging that Mahaveer Singh, revisionist No.1 solemnized marriage with Smt. Munisha(revisionist No.2) with the help of Sheoraj Singh, revisionist No.3 during life time of complainant. Accused were summoned vide order dated 16.7.1991, whereagainst revisionist No. 3 filed revision No. 351 of 1991 which was partly allowed and the case was sent back to concerned Magistrate for giving reason in respect of him. Subsequently impugned order was passed. Statement of complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Trial Court has, prima facie,found that Mahaveer Singh has done offence of bigamy by marrying with Munisha with the help of his father Sheoraj Singh. However, for summoning accused persons, reason is not required to be recorded.
It is settled principle of law that at the time of taking cognizance or issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the court is required to apply its mind and if he finds sufficient ground, it may take cognizance and issue process of summons.
In the case of Swarn Anand v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1977 Cr.L.J. 355 (All), this Court has held that the expression "in the opinion of a Magistrate" means that the Magistrate has to merely form an opinion as to the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding against the accused persons. It does not require him to record any reasons for his so doing.
In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Narendra Kumar Jhanjhri, 1990 Cr.L.J. 773, the Court has held that at this stage the defence of the accused is not the concern of the Court and it is only for the accused to appear and then put his defence which is to be considered by the Court at the time of framing of charge.
In the case of Anil Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 204, the Apex court has held that the defence open to the accused is not to be seen at the time of issuance of process.
This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
Copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within three months which shall be kept on record.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 P.P.