The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash/set aside the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Maharajganj in Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2013 and order dated 23.10.2013 passed by A.C.J.M. Maharajganj in Complaint Case No. 272 of 2010, under Section 323, 504, 506 and 3(1)X S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the case is exclusively triable by Sessions Court. The complainant and one Nanhu and Ramsurat only have been examined. Since all the witnesses cited in the complaint have not been examined, the summoning order is bad in the eye of law.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity.
A perusal of the record goes to show that initially, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Against the said order revision was filed which was also decided ex-parte. Applicants had approached this Court through application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1816 of 2014. This Court vide order dated 20.01.2014 disposed of the said application directing the applicants to move the recall application before the revisional court and revisional court was directed to consider the said application expeditiously in accordance with law. It also appears that the revisional court after hearing afresh to the applicants allowed the revision, set aside the order passed on the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. remanding back the matter to the concerned Magistrate. It also appears that the concerned Magistrate after hearing the complainant, vide order dated 23.10.2013 again summoned the applicants.
So long as the submission regarding the examination of all the witnesses cited in the complaint is concerned, it is choice of the complainant to whom he/she examined. This proposition is found support with the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary & others 2010 (7) SCC 578. Thus, there is no any substance in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicants on this count.
As far as other submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants are concerned, for deciding the same require leading of evidence, which can appropriately be done before the court below. At this stage the concerned Magistrate has to see only a prima-facie case against the applicants and from the material available on record, it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Meticulous scrutiny of evidence at par with trial is not required at this stage. No ground is made out to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and thus prayer made in the complaint is refused.
However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.1.2016 A. Singh