Court No. - 25
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 284 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sachin Sharma And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Hemant Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Sachin Sharma and four others against State of U.P. and another with prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 27.9.2016 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No. 2, Bulandshahar, in Complaint Case No. 2704 of 2016, Deepak Vs. Sachin Sharma and others, and order dated 2.1.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 10, Bulandshahar, in Criminal Revision No. 331 of 2017, Sachin Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, with contention that the learned Magistrate has wrongly summoned the petitioners and revision against the summoning order has been erroneously dismissed by the revisional court, whereas F.I.R. for the same occurrence and on the same day was got registered upon the pretext of the petitioners against the complainant but O.P. No. 2- complainant got himself medically examined before District Hospital, Bulandshahar, on 21.9.2014 in which injuries were found to be simple in nature and 2-3 days old. A frivolous Complaint Case no. 557 of 2014, Deepak Vs. Sachin Sharma and others, was filed on 7.2.2014 in which the complainant examined himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. then after summoning order was passed on 27.9.2016. Aggrieved with the summoning order dated 27.9.2016 Criminal Revision No. 331 of 2017 was filed before the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, and it was heard and rejected vide order dated 2.1.2019 whereas Case Crime No. 207 of 2014, u/s 452, 323, 504 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Aurangabad, District Bulandshahar, was registered upon the report of petitioner no. 5, who had received serious injuries in the occurrence and was medically examined on 19.9.2014 itself. In the statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. witnesses have fully corroborated the case but this complaint in counter blast has been filed with wrong facts in which the impugned summoning order has been passed. Hence, this petition.
Learned AGA has opposed the petition.
From the very perusal of the material placed this court and argument advanced by learned counsel for both sides it is apparent that the occurrence is of 19.9.2014 in between both sides for which a case crime was got registered at the police station upon the report of petitioner no. 5 against the complainant and others and for the same occurrence the complainant got himself medically examined on 21.9.2014 and filed complaint case against the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate VIII, Bulandshahar, in which statements of the complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of his witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. were got recorded and after hearing the complainant the impugned summoning order was passed against the petitioners. This was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, vide order dated 2.1.2019 has dismissed the revision and confirmed the summoning order against which this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.
The factual aspects being argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not to be analyzed under writ jurisdiction of this Court rather the same is to be analyzed by the Magistrate in trial. Apparently statement of the complainant coupled with statements of his witnesses are on the record and from the very perusal of those statements and admission of occurrence on 19.9.2014 the prima-facie substance for proceeding thereon is on the record and the Magistrate passed the order of summoning. This order was challenged before the Sessions Judge and the revisional court after analyzing the material placed on record has dismissed the revision and thereby confirmed the summoning order, hence, at this juncture there appears no sufficient ground to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Fiona Shrikhande vs State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 2014 SC 957 while discussing the previous law propounded in AIR 2000 SC 1456 has held that the Magistrate has only to see whether the allegations made in the complaint are prima-facie sufficient to proceed against the accused. He need not to enquire into merits and demerits of the case at the juncture of section 204 Cr.P.C.
Hence, under all above facts and circumstances and legal position, this petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Pcl