Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47114 of 2019 Applicant :- Ravendra Sonkar (Minor) And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhas Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Ravendra Sonkar and Sahil against State of U.P. and Pappu Mali with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 21.9.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.
40 of 2019, Pappu Mali Vs. Ravendra Sonkar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2019, under Sections 363 I.P.C., P.S. Rajapur, district Chitrakoot, pending in court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Chitrakoot.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that it is misuse of process of law, wherein applicants have been summoned, whereas they are innocent and are real brothers. They were found to be at their home in the enquiry made by the Investigating Officer. Firstly a first information report was lodged against unknown persons. It was a case of missing, wherein application u/s 210 Cr.P.C. was filed. The contention therein was other than the contention made in the complaint. This application was rejected. Subsequently the complaint was with embellishment, wherein applicants have been assigned role of abduction and on the basis of routine evidence of interested witnesses, the applicants have been summoned for offence punishable u/s 363 I.P.C. Hence this application.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above argument.
From the very perusal of the application moved before police station, it is apparent that it was contended that the police has not registered the report, as per statement of complainant. It was not a missing report at all because chick FIR reveals that it was a report against unknown for offence u/s 363 I.P.C. as a case crime number. Meaning thereby it was not a missing report. Rather F.I.R. But when report was not lodged, as per sequence reported by the complainant, he got this complaint lodged, wherein he had made accusation against applicants. Report of Investigating officer reveals that this allegation was levelled against applicants before the Investigating Officer. Meaning thereby that this was not for the first time accusation in the complaint. Rather since before it was being levelled and the contention of the complaint was reiterated in the statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. This was further corroborated in the statement recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. under enquiry made by the Special Judge (POCSO Act). Hence impugned summoning was based on the basis of evidence obtained in the enquiry made by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act). At the stage of section 204 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is not expected to meticulously analyse all factual aspect. Rather he has to opine as to whether by application of judicial mind a prima-face case is made out to proceed further by summoning or not. In the present case it was very well there.
This court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot embark upon factual matrix because it is to be seen by the trial court during trial. Accordingly, this application merits its dismissal.
Dismissed as such.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of thirty days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Pcl