Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2583 of 2018 Revisionist :- Vinod Chauhan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A.
This criminal revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.7.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C, Court No.27, Deoria in S.T No.20 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.644 of 2015 under Sections 366,376,323,504,506,427 IPC, P.S. Khukhundu District Deoria, summoning the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C for above offences.
The Court has perused the allegations made in the F.I.R and the statements of the witnesses. P.W-1 assigned a specific role to the revisionists for the commission of the alleged overt act. On the aforesaid evidence, the court below summoned the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C which is impugned herein.
The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) S.C.C. 92 after analyzing the previous judgments of the Apex Court held in paragraphs 105 & 106 as under:-
105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other persons may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused". The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.
Applying the law laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra), this court is of the view that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality/impropriety so as to warrant an interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
The revision is dismissed.
The court below, while considering the bail applications of the respective applicants shall bear in mind, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) A.D.J 151.
For a period of six weeks from today or till the revisionists surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionists. However, in case, revisionists do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
The learned Magistrate shall take into consideration the first proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C while considering the bail application of applicant no.3, a lady.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 RS