Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3537 of 2005 Revisionist :- Radhey Shyam and two others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Arunesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
None is present for revisionists even in the revised call. Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Present criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by Radhey Shyam, Dhani Ram and Chandravati against State of U.P. and Smt. Kamlesh against order dated 23.6.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No. 39, Agra in Complaint Case No.
514 of 2005 whereby revisionists Radhey Shyam, Chandravati and Dhani Ram were summoned under Section 498-A, 323,504, 506 IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act.
From perusal of record, it transpires that after recording evidence of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and P.W.-1 Rewati Prasad, P.W.-2 Chandrabhan, P.W.-3 Omwati under Section 202 Cr.P.C. who stated that accused-revisionists tortured complainant for demand of dowry, the Magistrate summoned revisionists under Section 498-A, 323,504, 506 IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act.
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.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 P.P.