Court No. - 58 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1235 of 2013 Revisionist :- Smt. Sunita Pandey & 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Chandra Gupta, Mayank Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate, Sudhir Mehrotra
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite service of notice.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, special counsel for Gagan Kumar Bharti, the then A.C.M.M. Court, No.7, Kanpur Nagar.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgement/order dated 30.03.2013 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-VII, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 2001 of 2012 (Ravi Datta Shukla Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey and others), under Section 500 I.P.C., PS- Kotwali, District-Kanpur Nagar.
Relevant facts of the case in brief are that the present complaint case was filed by the opposite party no.2 under Sections 193, 195, 200, 500, 501 & 511 of I.P.C., PS-Kotwali, District-Kanpur Nagar against the applicants (revisionists). After an inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summoning order under Section 500 I.P.C. was passed on 26.03.2011 against the applicants (revisionists) to face the trial. The aforesaid summoning order dated 26.03.2011 was challenged before this Court by way of filing a Criminal Misc. Application No. 31080 of 2012, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Sunita Pandey and others) which has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2012 with the direction to the applicants (revisionists) that in case the applicants (revisionists) move an application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned, through their counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with the provision of law and further directed that till the disposal of that application no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants (revisionists).
In compliance of the above said order dated 20.09.2012 passed by this Court applicants (revisionists) moved discharge application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned on 05.10.2012 and that has been rejected vide impugned order dated 30.03.2013.
It is contented by learned counsel for the revisionists that court below mechanically and illegally without considering the merit of the case has rejected the discharge application of the applicants (revisionists) and only ground mentioned in the impugned order is that applicants (revisionists) have not appeared before the court concerned and also they have not obtained bail. It is next contended that vide order dated 22.05.2013 the concerned Magistrate was summoned before this Court and he tendered unconditional apology which has been recorded on the order sheet dated 03.07.2013. It is next contended that the aforesaid complaint case was filed only for the harassment and in counterblast of the case Crime No. 297 of 2005, lodged by the revisionist no. 2 against the opposite party no. 2. The said complaint case was filed against the applicants (revisionists) on the basis of false and fabricated allegations and no prima facie case under Section 500 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists.
Perusal of the impugned order dated 30.03.2013 reveals that discharge application was rejected by the Court below on the ground that accused persons (revisionists) have not put their appearance before the court below and also not obtained bail. It is pertinent to mention here the relevant portion of the order dated 20.09.2012 passed in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 31080 of 2012. The relevant portion of the order dated 20.09.2012 is as under:-
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A, it is directed that in case the applicants move an application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. before the court concerned, through their counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of law. Till the disposal that application, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants.”
In compliance of this Court's order dated 20.09.2012, a discharge application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. was moved before the Court concerned through counsel and it was expected from the Magistrate concerned to pass appropriate order on the above said discharge application on merit but perusal of the impugned order reveals that merit has not been touched and on the sole ground since the revisionists have not surrendered before the Court concerned and have not applied for bail, the discharge application was rejected.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the facts of the instant case needs to be examined on merits. In view of the fact that the trial court has to reconsider the matter it is not necessary to express any opinion in this regard.
In my considered opinion, the matter has to go back to the Court of A.C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar for reconsidering the matter.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.03.2013 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate order afresh on merit as early as possible.
Order Date :- 29.03.2018 AKT