Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4787 of 2019 Revisionist :- Ram Babu And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Bed Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by Ram Babu and Suraj, against the State of U.P. and another, against the order dated 11.11.2019, passed over discharge application in Criminal Case No. 45560 of 2017 (Smt. Ganga Devi Vs. Ram Babu and another), under Sections 354, 354D, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Raipurwa, Dsitrict Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the revisionists argued that it was a case of counter blast. Firstly, case was lodged by revisionists. Then after a counter blast case was manufactured and was got lodged, wherein, they have been summoned. Revisionists filed a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court, wherein, quashing of summoning was refused but option for moving discharge application under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. was given and this was exercised, wherein, impugned order has been passed.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.
Summoning order was passed, after recording of statement under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Then after a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. No. 42175 of 2018 (Ram Babu and another Vs. State of U.P. and another), was filed, wherein, prayed relief was denied with a finding that "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings including order dated 29.8.2018, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused." Hence, very argument regarding illegality of summoning order is not to be taken because this relief has already been denied.
Regarding illegality in discharge application, it is admitted that the evidence on the basis of which, summoning order was passed, is there, and no evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Hence, nothing new was there on record except the evidence, on the basis of which, summoning was there.
Accordingly, a question for discharge was not there. Hence, Magistrate was fully justified in passing the impugned order and accordingly, there was no apparent error on the face of record or under exercise or mis exercise of jurisdiction by Magistrate. Accordingly, this revision merits its dismissal.
Dismissed, as such.
However, after recording of evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., the question of discharge, if any, under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. will be raised by revisionists.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Kamarjahan