Judgment Reserved
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2159 of 2011 Revisionist :- Nayab Ali Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Srivastava,Khurshed Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Maohammd Nadeem
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Shri Khurshed Alam on behalf of the revisionist, Shri Mohammad Nadeem on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. Perused the record.
The present criminal revision is filed under Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the summoning order dated 08.4.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No.10 Farrukhabad, in Complaint No.16 of 2011, (Zeeshan Vs. Farad & Ors) under Sections 420, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali, District-Farrukhabad.
In the present matter, opposite party no.2 submitted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Room No.10 Farrukhabad stating that:
“ fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ vkMZj ygaxk] lwV] nqiV~Vk] lkMh] dq'ku vkfn ij tjh dk dke djkdj eky lIykbZ djrk gSA o"kZ 2007 es izkFkhZ ds ikl ?ksj 'kkew [kka fuoklh Qjn vyh [kka iq= v;qc vyh [kka vius lkFk rkSdhj bdjke iq= bdjke] fuoklh dkuiqj uk;kc vyh [kak dks ysdj vk;s vkSj crk;k fd ;g yksx esjs fj'rssnkj gS vkSj eysf'k;k vkSj fnYyh es budk cMk dkjksckj gS vkSj ;g Vh0 ,0 ,l0 vksojlht ds uke ls fu;kZr djrs gSa budk rqe eky rS;kj djokvks vkSj vfHk;qDrks us izkFkhZ dks fo'okl esa ysdj dkQh ek=k es cSyosV o luhy diMks ij tjh dk dke fd;s gq;s LdkiZs jkm.M #eky ,ao cSMlhV] dq'ku doj vkfn cukus dk vkMZj fn;k vkSj bl izdkj izkFkhZ us dkQh ek=k es vfHk;qDrksa dks eky LkIykbZ fd;k vkSj blds Hkqxrku es vfHk;qDrkas }kjk ckEcs edZsUVkby dks & vkijsfVo cSasd dh psads nh x;h muesa ls nks psads tks #i;s 80]383@& dh FkhA muds ckjs es vfHk;qDr cjkcj ;g v'oklu nsrs jgs fd bUgsa cSsad es u yxkvks ge budk iSLkk ns nsaxsA ijUrq vfHk;qDrksa us dskbZ iSlk ugh fn;kA fnukad 16-8-2010 dsk vfHk;qDr rkSdhj bdjke] uk;kc vyh [kka fuoklh ch & 88 dSyk'k fcgkj vkokl ua0 3 dY;k.kiqj ds lkFk izkFkhZ ds ikl vk;k vkSj dgk fd vc dksbZ eqdnek u djuk ge 20] rkjh[k rd Hkqxrku dj nsaxs ijUrq vfHk;qDrks us dksbZ Hkqxrku ugh fd;k bl ij izkFkhZ us ,d fof/kd lwpuk i= vfHk;qDr rkSdhj ds ikl fHktok;kA ftlij mlus dkuwuh dk;Zokgh u djus dh /kedh Hkh nhA fnukad 6-1-2011 dks 'kke yxHkx 5 cts izkFkhZ dks tkudkjh feyh fd vfHk;qDr ?ksj 'kkew [kka es Qjn vyh ds ;gak vk;s gq;s gS bl ij izkFkhZ o bfy;kl vgen iq= uthj vgen ds lkFk vius #i;ksa dk rdknk djus x;k rks ;gka vfHk;qDr rkSdhj bdjke] uk;kc vyh vkSj Qjn vyh feys vkSj izkFkhZ dks ns[krs gh LkHkh yksx izkFkhZ ij geykoj gks x;s vkSj eka cfgu dh xkfy;ka nsdj dgus yxs fd rsjh bruh fgEer gS tks ?kj ij rdknk djus pyk vk;k gS vkSj ykr ?kwlks ls ekjrs gq;s ?kj ds vUnj [khap ys x;s vkSj dejs es cUn dj fn;k RkFkk lkFk x;s bfy;kl vgen dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nh vkSj ogka ls Hkxk fn;k ftlij bfy;kl vgen eksgYys ds dSLkj iq= eksgEen uQhl vkfn yksxks dsk ysdj fQj nksckjk x;s bl nkSjku vfHk;qDrksa us izkFkhZ dks dejs es cUn j[kdj tku ls ekjus dk Hk; fn[kkrs gq;s dbZ dkxtks ij gLrk{kj djok;s vfHk;qDr ds ?kj ckgj dkQh yksxks ds 'kksjxqy djus ij fdlh rjg vfHk;qDrksa us izkFkhZ dks ogka ls eqDr fd;k vkSj /kedh nh fd vxj fdlh ls f'kdk;r dh rks rq>s ftUnk ugh NksMsaxsA vfHk;qDrx.ksk }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFk Bxh djrs gq;s mls ekSr dk Hk; fn[kykdj vius LoykHk esa ifjoknh ls dbZ dkxtks ij gLrk{kj djok fy;s x;s gSA ?kVUkk dh lwpuk iqfyl v/kh{kd Q#Z[kkckn dks nh x;h ijUrq dksbZ fjiskVZ ugh fy[kh x;hA vr% izkFkZUkk gS fd lcwr ryc Qjekdj vfHk;qDrx.ksk dks nf.Mr djus dh d`ik djasaA^^ Complainant recorded her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
that:
“ ifjoknh th'kku iq= eks0 guhQ mez 25 o"kZ is'kk tjnkSth fuoklh eks0 x<h[kku efugkjh Fkkuk dksrokyh Q#Z[kkckn tuin Q#Z[kkckn us l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd %& lu~ 2007 es Qjn vyh] rkSdhj bdjke vkSj uk;kc vyh esjs ?kj ij vk, vkSj esjk dke ns[kk tks mUgs ilUn vk;kA vkMZj ij eq>s lkeku rS;kj djus dsk dgkA 80]383@& #Ik;s dh nks psds nhA psd cSad es u yxkus dks dgk fd iSlk uxn ns nasxsA eS ckj & ckj iSlk ekaxk ij lquokbZ ugh gqbZ pSd Hkh ckmUl gks x;sA fnukad 6-1-11 dsk ges Qjn vyh ds ;gak rkSdhj bdjke ds vkus dh [kcj feyhA 'kke 5 cts eS esjs pkpk rdkns ds fy;s x;sA mDr yksx ges ns[krs gh xkyh xykSt djus yxs ekjihV dh ?kj ds vUnj [khp ys x;sA dejs es cUn dj fn;kA dbZ dkxtks ij gels gLrk{kj djk;s vkSj pkpk dks Hkxk fn;kA eq>s cUn j[kkA pkpk dqN yksxks dsk ysdj vk, vkSj eq>s cpk;kA esjh fjiksVZ ugh fy[kh x;hA ,l ih egksn; dks izk0 i= fn;k dksbZ dk;Zokgh u gksus ij fookn izLrqr fd;k gSA”
that:
P.W.1 Iliyas Ahmad recorded his statement where he had stated “ esjk uke bfy;kl vgen iq= uthj vgen vk;q 53 o"kZ is'kk eksVj eSdsfud fuoklh x<h[kku [kkuk Fkkuk Q#Z[kkckn ftyk Q#Z[kkckn us vkt 21-2-11 dsk cgyQ c;ku fd;k fd %& fnukad 6-1-11 dks 'kke djhc 5-00 cts th'kku us eq>s vkdj crk;k fd rkSdhj vkSj uk;kc vyh ?ksj 'kkew [kka esa Qjgn vyh ds ;gka vk;s gq;s gSA vkSj fQj th'kku esjs lkFk vius #i;ksa dk rxknk djus Qjn vyh ds ?kj ij igaqpk rks ogka ij rkSdhj bdjke uk;kc vyh vkSj Qjn vyh feysA th'kku dks ns[krs gh ;g yksx geykoj gks x;s vkSj eka cfgu dh xkfy;ka nsdj dgus yxs fd rsjh bruh fgEer dh rw rxknk djus ?kj pyk vk;kA vkSj ykr ?kwlks ls ekjrs gq;s th'kku dks ?kj ds vUnj [khap ys x;s vkSj dejs es cUn dj fn;kA vkSj eq>s tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj ogka ls Hkxk fn;kA fQj eS eksgYys ds eksgEen uQhl vkfn dbZ yksxks dks ysdj nqckjk ogka ij x;k Fkk bl nkSjku vfHk;qDrks us th'kku dks dejs es cUn dj tku ls ekjus dk Hk; fn[kkrs gq;s dbZ dksjs dkxtks ij gLrk{kj djok fy;sA ?kj ds ckgj ge yksxks ds 'kksj xqy ij dkQh yksx vk x;sA yksxks ds vkus ij bu yksxks us th'kku dks NksM fn;kA /kedh Hkh nh fd f'kdk;r dh rks tku ls ekj nsaxsA ?kVUkk dh lwpuk ,lih Q#Z[kkckn dks A dksbZ dk;ZOkkgh u gksus ij ifjokn nk;j fd;k gSA ”
Similarly, Kaisar P.W.2 has stated that:
“ e sjk dSlj iq= uQhl vk;q 48 o"kZ i s'k tsjeksth fuoklh x<h[kku [kkuk Fkkuk Q#Z[kkckn ftyk Q#Z[kkckn us vkt fnukad 25 & 3 & 11 dks cgyQ c;ku fd;k fd %& fnukad 6-1-11 dks 'kke yxHkx 5-30 cts dh ckr gSA esjs ikl bfy;kl vgen iq= uthj vgen gMcMkdj Hkkxrs gq;s vk;s vkSj dgk fd tYnh pyks th'kku dks ?ksj 'kkew [kka us Qjgr vyh ds edku esa vfHk;qDrksa us cUn dj fy;k gSA mldh tku dks cgqr [krjk gSA bl ij eS o eqgYys ds vusd yksx Qjgr vyh ds edku fLFkr eksgYyk ?ksj 'kkew [kka ij x;sA vkSj ogka ij Qjgr vyh vkSj fNyyh esa jgus okys fj'rsnkj rkSdhj bdjke o dkuiqj fuoklh uk;kc vyh ftUgsa igys ls tkurk gwa feys Fks vkSj ge yksxks us dkQh 'kksj epk;k dgk fd vHkh iqfyl dks f'kdk;r djsaxsA rc vfHk;qDrks us th'kku dks dejs ls fudkyk FkkA og dkQh lgek o Mjk Fkk mlus ges crk;k fd bu yksxks us reUpk fn[kkdj dbZ dkxtks ij nLr[kr djk;s gSA vkSj dksbZ dk;Zokgh u djus dh /kedh nhA rkSdhj bdjke us th'kku ls dkQh eky rS;kj djk;k Fkk ckn esa QthZ pSd nsdj th'kku dk #i;k gMi fd;k vkSj mlds cS/k dk;Zokgh djus ij ?kVUkk ?kfVr dh x;hA ”
The learned Trial Court vide reasoned order dated 08.4.2011, after considering the material on record passed order to summon the accused under Sections 420,323,504 and 506 I.P.C. Order states that:
“ ifjoknh dk dFku gS fd lUk~ 2007 es Qjn vyh] rkSdhj bdjke vkSj uk;kc vyh mlds ?kj ij vk, vkSj mldk dke ns[kk tks mUgs ilUn vk;kA vkMZj ij mls lkeku rS;kj djus dks dgk vkSj 80]383@& #i;s dh nks psds nhA pSd cSad esa u yxkus dks dgk fd iSlk uxn ns nsaxsA mlus ckj & ckj iSlk ekaxk ijUrq lquokbZ ugh gqbZA psd ckmal gks x;sA fnukad 6 & 11 & 2011 dsk mlls Qjn vyh us dgk rkSdhj] bdjke dh vkus dh [kcj feyhA 'kke 5-00 cts og vkSj pkpk rdkns ds fy;s x;sA mDr yksx mls ns[krs gh xkyh xykSt djus yxs ekjihV dh ?kj ds vUnj [khp ys x;sA dejs esa cUn dj fn;kA dbZ dkxtks ij mlls gLrk{kj djk;s vkSj pkpk dsk Hkxk fn;kA mls cUn j[kkA pkpk dqN yksxks dks ysdj vk, vkSj mls cpk;kA Fkkus ij fjiksVZ fy[kkus x;k rks mldh fjiksVZ ugh fy[kh x;hA ,l0 ih0 dks izkFkZuk i= fn;k dksbZ dk;Zokgh u gksus ij ifjokn izLRkqr fd;kA ifjoknh dk c;ku /kkjk 200 na0 iz0 la0 lk{khx.k ih0 Mcyw & 1 ,oa ih0 Mcyw & 2 ds lk{; ls lefFkZRk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) /kkjk 420] 323] 504] 506] Hkk0 na0 la0 dk izkfe n`"V;k vijk/k curk izrhr gksrk gSA”
Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the order of summoning in the present case.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that:
(a) Revisionist has not issued the cheque, therefore, no case under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out against him.
(b) No injury report is placed on record.
(c) Dispute is of civil nature and unnecessary dragged in criminal proceedings.
(d) P.W.2, Kaiser has not witnessed the incident.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the order of summoning is correct and under revisional jurisdiction, the High Court has very limited power, therefore, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
Complainant in his complaint has specifically mentioned that revisionist (Nayab Ali Khan) along with other accused had given order for cloth to the complainant. Further other accused also gave cheque to the complainant and both the accused had requested him not to deposit it in the bank. Revisionist as well as other accused have cause hurt to the complainant and also threatened him.
The P.W.1 and P.W.2 have also supported the case of the complainant, which is clear from the statement mentioned above.
The learned Court below has summoned the revisionist as well as the other accused considering the material on record and found that there are sufficient ground for proceeding against him and accordingly passed the summoning order.
In view of the above discussions, the submissions made by the revisionist are sans merit hence rejected.
Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. Interim order, if any, is vacated.
Order Date:- 31.1.2019 SB