Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4892 of 2019 Revisionist :- Sanat Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ruchita Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.10.2019, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (U.P.D.A.A. Act), Lalitpur, whereby the discharge application dated 30.09.2019 moved by the revisionists has been rejected as well as the entire proceeding of S.S.T. No. 14 of 2019 (Rameshwar Vs. Sanat Kumar & others), under Sections 394, 397 I.P.C., arising out of Case No. 46 of 2018 (Rameshwar Vs. Sanat Kumar & others), Police Station Narahat, District Lalitpur.
Heard learned counsel for revisionists and learned A.G.A. for State.
Learned counsel for revisionists argued that it was improbable that revisionists, who were under mercantile relation with complainant will become annoyed because of not having trade for one year and due to this reason, alleged offence of robbery is said to have been committed by revisionists, whereas no weapon was used for commission of alleged offence nor any such offence was ever committed, but this false implication was there. This summoning was challenged in a proceeding before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15250 of 2019, wherein option for moving discharge application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. was given. The discharge application was moved before trial court, which was rejected vide impugned order. Hence, this revision with above prayer.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the revision.
From the very perusal of discharge application, it is apparent that it was moved by accused revisionists with this contention that reason of enmity was improbable. The alleged robbery was never committed nor any weapon was said to have been used in above robbery. Hence, offences under Section 397 I.P.C. was not made out. There was inconsistency in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2. No meticulous details were given about the sequence of offence of robbery, even then, revisionists who were of no criminal antecedent and were of old age, have been summoned. Learned Judge heard and passed impugned order with this finding that statement of complainant was there that in the night of 9 P.M., while complainant was at his home, accused gave a call. He opened his gate. The accused persons entered inside his house, over powered him and took ornaments and cash from the box kept thereat. Hence, it was an offence of robbery, wherein assault was made. This statement of complainant was in reiteration of contention of complaint and there was corroboration by statement of PW-1 and PW-2, recorded under inquiry made by Magistrate. On the basis of those evidence collected, impugned summoning order for offence of robbery punishable under Sections 394, 397 I.P.C. was passed, for which there was sufficient prima facie evidence, for levelling charges. Meticulous analysis of evidence is not to be made at the juncture of framing of charge. Hence, this discharge application was rejected.
In the present case, there was prima facie evidence for summoning and revisionists were summoned on the basis of evidence, which was collected and which was given by the complainant. There was sufficient evidence for framing of charges. Accordingly, application for discharge was rejected, which was neither exceeding of jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction or error apparent on the face of record. Hence, this revision merits its dismissal.
The revision is dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 NS