Court No.- 45 Case :- Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 8608 of 2006
Petitioner :- Shyam Singh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Saran
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate, Deepak Gaur, Suresh Chandra Verma
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. For the state on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
List has been revised.
This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 20.02.2006 passed by Incharge Sessions Judge, Farrukkhabad in Criminal Revision No. 122 of 2006 and order dated 01.04.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hawali, Farrukkhabad passed in Case No. 341 of 2005.
That an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent no. - 2, Ramakanth, regarding incident dated 14.12.2004 on 20.12.2004 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that two persons, Ramakanth and Tula Ram, were assaulted by the petitioners and caste related abuses were given. The police investigated the case and submitted a final report against which protest petition was filed on 04.05.2005 by the respondent no. 2 which was allowed. Trial court registered the case as a complaint case and after examination of the complainant and the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively summoned the accuseds for trial under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act vide order dated 01.04.2006 The revisional court has affirmed the aforesaid order vide its order dated 20.06.2006 and hence this revision.
A perusal of the summoning order dated 01.04.2006 shows that it has 2 not considered how the alleged offences are made out against the petitioners. No reason has been recorded and the only finding is that the witnesses have supported the case of the complainant and therefore the accuseds are being summoned for facing the trial. The revisional court has dismissed the revision on the ground of maintainability only.
A perusal of the order passed by trial court shows it is a non- speaking and unreasoned order which cannot be sustained. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar vs. State of Haryana and Anr., 2012 Law Suits (SC) 159, wherein the Apex Court has held that the revision against the order issuing process is amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Therefore the revisional court order can also not be sustained.
The order passed by the courts below are set aside. This writ petition is allowed. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of two months. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below within a week.
Order Date: 24.09.2018 Rohit