Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2918 of 2019 Revisionist :- Sandeep Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Guru Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri G. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionists, and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.06.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Devband, Saharanpur in Misc. Case No.
126 of 2019 "Smt. Rajjo Vs. Sandeep and others", under Sections 376, 511, 354, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., P.S.
Nanauta, District Saharanpur by which the court below summoned the Revisionist no. 1 under Sections 376, 511, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. and summoned the Revisionist nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionists that earlier a case under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C. was lodged against the Opposite Party No. 2 by the accused revisionist which is annexed at page no. 37. After the same, by way of retaliation, the present case has falsely been slapped against the accused revisionists by Opposite Party no. 2 in which final report was submitted by the I.O. but the trial court has erroneously summoned the accused revisionists by rejecting the same despite there being no evidence on record. Hence, the summoning order needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing.
I have gone through the impugned order wherein it is recorded that the victim, Ruby, had given her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which she had stated that on 17.05.2018 at 05:00 PM, when she was alone, the accused revisionist no. 1 Sandeep Kumar entered her home and caught hold of her from behind, thereafter, the accused had taken her inside her house and had molested her. At the same time, the sister of the victim had also come there from the house of a neighbour, thereafter, the accused revisionist no. 1 fled from there threatening that he will cut her into pieces with a sword. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had stated that accused revisionist no. 1 Sandeep Kumar is a bad character person, who teases her and has evil eyes on her. On 17.05.2018, at 5:00 P.M., when she was alone at her home, the accused revisionist no. 1, Sandeep Kumar entered her house and had caught hold of her from behind and tried to outrage her modesty. When her younger sister came there, the accused revisionist fled from there threatening that she would be killed. On that very day, the other co-accused Anikesh and Ankit with his father Vedpal again entered her house and she along with her family members have been beaten by hands and fists. It is further recorded that the Investigating Officer despite the incriminating evidence on record, which is stated above, has filed final report and closed the case erroneously, therefore finding that the prosecutrix had supported the prosecution version, the impugned order has been passed summoning the accused revisionists under Section 190 Clause (1) (b) to face trial under above mentioned sections.
I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity as the same was passed by the trial court on the basis of evidence which has been recorded by I.O. hence, this Revision deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.
However, the revisionists may approach the trial court to seek discharge, if so advised, and before the said forum, they may raise all the pleas which have been taken by them here. If such application is made, the same shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with. The committal court shall commit the case within 30 days subject to compliance of provision of Section 209 Cr.P.C. to facilitate the trial court to hear and dispose of discharge application.
The revisionists may appear before committal court within 30 days to get his case committed to the Court of Sessions so that the accused may move discharge application before it. For a period of 30 days from the date of order, no coercive action shall be taken. But if the accused does not appear before the Committal court, the said court shall take coercive steps to procure their attendance.
With aforesaid direction, this Criminal Revision is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 VPS