Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2364 (ALL)

Satyadev and 5 Ors. v. State of U. P. and Another

2013-09-20

VIJAY PRAKASH PATHAK

body2013
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of the complaint case No. 323 of 2011 (Surendra Singh Vs. Satyadev and Others), under Sections 147, 323 and 506 of IPC initiated in pursuance of the summoning order dated 12.07.2011, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that no offence has been made out against the petitioners and the complaint was filed with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment only. It is also submitted that the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah, without considering the entire material has illegally summoned the applicants to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 506 of IPC. It is submitted that the present complaint has been lodged in a counter blast to the FIR lodged from the side of the applicants against the opposite party no. 2 and 5 others under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)10 SC/ST Act at Police Station Vedpura, District Etawah about the incident dated 5.3.2011 at 4.00 P.M. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah after considering the entire material, including the allegations in the complaint, statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively has come to the conclusion that a primafacie case has been made out against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 506 of IPC and accordingly summoned them to face trial. It is also contended that against the summoning order, two criminal revisions i.e. criminal revision No. 103 of 2011 was filed by opposite party No.2 about summoning the applicants under Section 307 IPC also and criminal revision No. 130 of 2011 was filed by the applicants but both the said revisions have been dismissed by the learned lower revisional Court vide order dated 5.4.2013. It is submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah as well as by learned lower revisional Court as at present a prima facie case is to be seen and considered. It is submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah as well as by learned lower revisional Court as at present a prima facie case is to be seen and considered. It is also submitted that it can be said that the present complaint has been lodged in a counter blast as the incident under present complaint is dated 5.3.2013 at 8.00 A.M., whereas in the FIR lodged by the applicants side, the incident is said to be taken place at 4.00 P.M. on 5.3.2011. 5. After considering the arguments advanced by the rival parties' counsel, the impugned summoning order and the order of learned lower revisional Court along with all other material available on record, I find no infirmity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned dated 12.7.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah and the order dated 5.4.2013 passed by learned lower revisional Court. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the averments made on behalf of the petitioners are related to the disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen and considered in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para- 10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. 6. In view of the aforesaid considerations, this petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. _____________