Court No. - 3
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22524 of 2019 Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shrawan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Shrawan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 21.11.2017, whereby the applicants have been summoned for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, IPC registered as case No.8567 of 2017, Rajpal Singh Vs. Rajendra and others, pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that initially O.P. No.2 has given an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the learned magistrate whereupon a revision was filed from his side and in revision the learned Judge while setting aside the rejection order remanded back the file for fresh consideration. Thereafter the application was registered as complaint case and the evidence of complainant and witnesses were recorded and the applicants were summoned for the aforesaid offence. It has been submitted that the case is false one and there was no evidence on the basis of which the applicants could have been summoned.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the request of the applicants.
Considered the submission of both the parties. So far as the law is concerned, against the summoning order remedy of revision is very much available in the Criminal Procedure Code. On facts also it appears from the perusal of the impugned order that the learned trial court after recording the evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and perusing the record summoned the applicants for the said offence. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of summoning it is not expected from the court below to pass a very detailed order. What is expected is to see that by the evidence on record whether a prima facie offence is being made out or not. In the impugned order it has been observed by the learned magistrate that a prima facie case for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, IPC was being made out.
Hence, I do not find any ground for interference in the impugned order.
This application is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that if the applicants surrender before the learned magistrate and move an application for bail within a month from today, the learned magistrate will consider the bail prayer of the applicants and pass suitable orders expeditiously, preferably on the same day.
Order Date :- 11.6.2019 T. Sinha