Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 379 of 2019 Revisionist :- Satish And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiva Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. of the State.
The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Budhana, Muzaffar Nagar in Case No. 137 of 2013 whereby the discharge application has been rejected.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that pursuant to a complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 against the revisionists the court below had proceeded to pass order summoning them to face trial under Section 406 I.P.C. when prima facie no offence is made out against them. The revisionists had approached this court by filing an Application U/s. 482 No. 4991 of 2018, which was disposed of by an order dated 16.2.2018, the relevant portion of the order is extracted below;
"If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. On the other hand if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material produced by the complainant does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits."
The learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that the discharge application moved by the revisionists pursuant to the order dated 16.2.2018 has been rejected by the court below in a very cursory manner when prima faice no offence is made out. From the perusal of the order impugned it transpires that the court below has considered the factual matrix of the case and has passed the order, which does not require any interference at this stage. The revisionists have not appeared before the court and moved the bail application prior to moving the discharge application, as such this court does not find any good ground to interfere with the order.
The revision is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Shahnawaz