Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 839 (ALL)

Tara Chand and Anr. v. State of U. P. and Anr.

2011-03-31

VINOD PRASAD

body2011
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.:- Challenge in this revision by the two revisionists is to the order dated 15.02.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Bijnor in F.R. Case No.463 of 2010 relating to the Crime No.490 of 2010, under sections 394, 504 and 506 IPC title as Natthu Vs. Tara Chand relating to the P.S.Kotwali City, District Bijnor. By the impugned order, trial court has rejected the F.R. submitted by the police has summoned the revisionists to face trial for offences under sections 394, 504 and 506 IPC. Since pure question of law has been mooted for decision, going into the factual aspect of the case is not essential and hence is eschewed. It is submitted by Sri Jagdev Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists that the impugned summoning order has been passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1 and since under Code of Criminal Procedure, no such court is empowered to summon the revisionists, therefore, summoning order suffers from an error of lack of jurisdiction. It is submitted that Additional Civil Judge cannot entertain any criminal matter as he is a judicial authority on the civil side under C.P.C. But for the aforesaid mooted contention, no other argument was raised by the revisionists' counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA in opposition. The above contention mooted for a decision is dependent upon the order of summoning and, therefore, certified copy of the impugned order as was issued from the lower court was perused. The aforesaid copy issued depicts designation of the court as Ist Additional Civil Judge, S.D., Bijnor at the beginning of the order. Signature of the Presiding Officer, Amitveer Singh, in the impugned summoning order dated 15.12.2011 also mentions the same designation of the court. There is no slash for other designation nor the same is mentioned. In such a view, the argument though technical, is well merited. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), being a court of civil jurisdiction had no jurisdiction to entertain criminal matter. Though, the same person may act as judicial officers both on the criminal side and as on the civil side, but order has to be passed in consonance with correct jurisdiction under which the same person was acting. It does not matter as to whether the same person is passing order on the civil side or on the criminal side. Though, the same person may act as judicial officers both on the criminal side and as on the civil side, but order has to be passed in consonance with correct jurisdiction under which the same person was acting. It does not matter as to whether the same person is passing order on the civil side or on the criminal side. What is legally necessary is that the authority exercising power should be the authority mentioned under the Act. The civil Judge (Senior Division), though may pass an order in a criminal matter exercising power of a Magistrate, but it can do so only when it draws power under Cr.P.C. and not C.P.C. In such a view, the impugned order of summoning passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijnor, is wrong exercise of the jurisdiction and, therefore, it cannot be sustained. In conformity with argument of the State Counsel, impugned order dated 15.12.2011 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bijnor, Court No.1 in F.R. Case No.463 of 2010 relating to the Crime No.490 of 2010, under sections 394, 504 and 506 IPC in case titled as Natthu Vs. Tara Chand relating to the P.S.Kotwali City, District Bijnor, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the concerned court to redecide the question of summoning of the revisionists by exercising the correct jurisdiction under which he can deal with criminal case under Cr.P.C. Since mistake pointed out above is occurring in many of the matters, it is desirable that the District Judge, Bijnor be directed to inform all its judicial officers not to commit such types of mistakes which unnecessary load the work in this Court. This revision is allowed as above with further direction that the question of summoning the revisionists be decided by the concerned court as expeditiously as possible, if possible within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it.