Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Sarju Alias Sarjo Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|18 January, 2021

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 24.08.2020 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Banda in Complaint Case No. 1347 of 2019 (Buddhraj Vs. Sarju and others) under Sections 323, 354, 504 I.P.C. Police Station Bisanda, District Banda.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It was submitted that before filing of the complaint, a non-cognizable-report was lodged by Rukmaniya, wife of the opposite party no.2 with allegations that the applicant has destroyed her crops and assaulted her and after that impugned complaint has been filed on false and baseless allegations against the applicant. Itwas further submitted that applicant is a student of Class XI and that allegations made in the complaint against him are false and improbable. It was next submitted that complainant has not submitted the list of witnesses but despite that the impugned summoning order has been passed against the applicant. Learned counsel has further submitted that no prima facie case is disclosed against the applicant and that the impugned summoning order has been passed without considering the factual and legals aspect of the matter, therefore the impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that allegations made in the complaint, makes out a prima facie case against the applicant, hence the impugned summoning order is not liable to be quashed.
It is well settled that at the stage of summoning only it is to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out or not. If after examining the complainant and witnesses, Magistrate is satisfied that there is ground to proceed with the complaint, he can issue process by way of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C. At this stage a mini trial cannot be held and that enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is limited only to ascertain true or false allegations made in the complaint and whether on the material placed by complainant a prima facie case was made out for summoning of accused or not.
In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
In the instant case, in view of the allegations made in complaint and statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that a prima facie case is not made out. There is nothing to indicate that there is any abuse of the process of Court or there has been any miscarriage of justice, so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.
Accordingly, the prayer as sought by applicant is refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter and impact of Covid-19 Pandemic, it is directed that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below and applies for bail within a period of 45 days from today, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicant surrender before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 18.1.2021 S.Ali
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sarju Alias Sarjo Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
18 January, 2021
Judges
  • Raj Beer Singh