Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6223 of 2018 Appellant :- Manoj Tiwari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This criminal appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 28.7.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST, Act), Hamirpur, as well as the entire proceedings in Special Case No. 02 of 2016 State versus Sanjay Tiwari, arising out of Case Crime No. 665 of 2015, under Sections 302, 394, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jalalpur, District Hamirpur. By the aforesaid summoning order dated 28.7.2018 appellants Manoj Tiwari and Baua alias Atul Tiwari have been summoned to face trial under Sections 302, 394, 201 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness much less than any abuse of the court's process which may persuade this Court to interfere in the impugned order. There does not appear to be any irregular feature in the impugned order. There is no element of perversity reflected in the same. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into in right perspective. The evidence that has been produced in the court was found sufficient to justify the summoning of the additional accused. After going through the record this Court does not see any good reason to take a different view of the matter. The mere fact that the charge sheet was not submitted against the appellants as during the course of investigation their complicity was not found proved, this is not a sufficient ground to oust the jurisdiction of the trial court for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Of course, the standard of sufficiency of evidence which may justify the summoning of the additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is on higher footing but nevertheless the Court is not required to sit upon the judgement and appreciate the evidence with the same rigour as it is supposed to do at the time of final adjudication on the point of guilt or innocence of the accused. If the judicial discretion has been rightly exercised and there is nothing wrong about the same, this Court is loath to substitute the same by its own even in cases it feels inclined to take a different view of the matter. So far as the present case is concerned, the evidence produced is quite sufficient to vindicate the summoning of the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The legal rationale and the law laid down in the Constitution Bench decision given in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC-92 appears to have been rightly invoked in the present case.
This criminal appeal lacks merit and stands dismissed.
However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case after surrendering in the court below an application for bail is moved on behalf of the appellants within 10 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the appellants in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.
It is made clear that if this order is not availed by the appellants within stipulated period of time, no time extension application shall be entertained.
It is further clarified that for the present this order has been passed only with regard to the appellants on behalf of whom this appeal has been filed in this Court.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 CPP/-