Called out in the revised list. Neither learned counsel for the petitioners has appeared to argue the case nor there is any request for adjournment of the case. The case relates to the year 2015. No effective arguments has been advanced after obtaining the interim order by the petitioners and the case has been adjourned on one or the other reason. The court has no option but to decide the petition on merits with the assistance of learned A.G.A.
This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 05.06.2013 passed in Complaint Case No.1195 of 2012 (Smt. Lalita Bajpai vs. Manish Kumar Mishra) as well as the order dated 16.12.2014 passed in Revision No.266 of 2013 (Madan Lal Mishra vs. State of U.P. and another).
It has been stated in the petition that respondent no.2 has filed a false complaint against the petitioners. Statements were recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The opposite party no.2 has also lodged a first information report as case crime no.5 of 2012 under sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Alambagh, District Lucknow. It has been stated that the court below only on the statements has voluntarily without application of judicial mind summoned the petitioners for the trial of offence under sections 406 I.P.C. vide order dated 05.06.2013. Revision against the summoning order dated 05.06.2013 has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 16.12.2014.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, argued that the order, summoning the accused-applicants, has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on the basis of the evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and there is nothing illegal in it.
In the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal and another, 1973 (10) ACC 181 (SC) while considering the scheme of sections 200, 203 Cr.P.C., it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Section 203 Cr.P.C. does not say that a regular trial for adjudging the truth or otherwise of the accusation made against the accused should take place at that stage. Section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials, there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint.
In the case of Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose, I964 (1) SCR 693, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the stage of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction. Again in the case of Smt. Nagwwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and ohers, 1976 (1) ACC 225 (S.C.) while considering the scope of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the basis of the materials placed by the complainant before the Court; (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (c) for deciding the questin purely from the point of view of complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In that case, it has been held by way of illustration that the order of Magistrate issung process can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value made out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused.
In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2002 (44) ACC 168 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the stage of passing order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. searching sufficient ground to convict is not necessary.
In the present case, the Magistrate concerned, after considering the evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has concluded that prima facie a case is made out against the applicants and as such the applicants have been summoned as accused. A perusal of the aforesaid statements reveals that the applicants have, prima facie, committed offence and in these circumstances it cannot be held that the Magistrate has committed any illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned order.
In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the progress of the proceedings. Moreover, the applicants have right to be discharged under Sections 239/227/228/245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be by making a proper application for the said purpose containing therein their submissions with regard to their discharge.
However, in this matter, after enquiry, the Magistrate has found a prima-facie case against the accused persons. At this stage there is no occasion to look into the question, whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not since that would be a subject matter of trial.
No substantial ground has been made out which may justify interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. From perusal of the record, it cannot be said that the cognizable offence is not made out against the petitioners.
The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 VNP/-