Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2371 (ALL)

DHARMA @ DHARMVEER v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-08-07

RANJANA PANDYA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.—This writ petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 13.5.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 1035 of 2013 and the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh in Complaint No. 196 of 2013 (Chhotey Lal Sharma v. Dharma alias Dharmveer, under Section 392 IPC, PS Gandhi Park, Aligarh, whereby the petitioner was summoned. 2. Brief facts of the case are that according to the FIR, on 16.1.2013 at about 9.00 p.m. Chhotey Lal Sharma was sleeping in his house with his family members, suddenly Dharma alias Dharmveer resident of Nagla Mali alongwith his four companion entered the house of Chhotey Lal Sharma. All the people had muffled their faces. As soon as Dharma alias Dharmveer and his companion entered the house of Chhotey Lal Sharma, they started terrorizing Chhotey Lal Sharma and his family members by showing country made pistol and also assaulting the wife, son and daughter-in-law of Chhotey Lal Sharma. The complainant and his family members got frightened and when the complainant resisted, muffled faces of the miscreants were opened, the complainant and his family members saw and recognized Dharma alias Dharmveer in the light. All the miscreants committed loot at the house of the complainant. On raising hue and cry, the witnesses Smt. Santosh Devi and Satya Pal came and they also saw Dharma alias Dharmveer in the light. The miscreants took two pairs of ear rings of gold, two pairs of pazeb of silver and one pendent of gold and Rs. 3000/- cash from the Almirah. Previously also Dharma alias Dharmveer had committed theft in the house of the complainant, against whom a case is pending. Dharma alias Dharmveer also threatened the complainant to kill him. The complainant went to the police station to lodge an FIR, but his report was not lodged, hence he sent an application to the S.S.P., but no action was taken, thus, he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint case vide order dated 1.2.2013. Chhotey Lal Shrma was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and in inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses PW-1 Satya Pal and PW-2 Smt Santosh Devi were recorded and documentary evidence was filed. Chhotey Lal Shrma was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and in inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses PW-1 Satya Pal and PW-2 Smt Santosh Devi were recorded and documentary evidence was filed. The learned lower Court on perusal of the documents and statements found that the case under Section 392 IPC was prima facie made out and summoned the accused under Section 319 IPC. Feeling aggrieved, the accused Dharma alias Dharmveer filed revision being Criminal Revision No. 1035 of 2013, which was also dismissed on 13.5.2014. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this is a counter blast on the petitioner. Previously also a similar case has been filed, which is false and fictitious. The present case is also false and fictitious and has been filed only to harass the petitioner. 5. It is well-settled law that while passing the summoning order the Magistrate has only to see whether there are grounds to proceed or not. The Magistrate has not see whether the matter would end in conviction or not. 6. In Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh and others, 1992 Cri LJ 3161, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that : “The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of full dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the Enquiry Officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry. vide Vadilal Panchlal v. Dattartaya Dulji Ghadigaonkar, (1961) 1 SCR 1 : (1960) Cri LJ 1499) and Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 297 : (1962(1) Cri LJ 770).” 7. Thus, the only thing which the trial Court has to see was whether there were sufficient ground to proceed or not. The learned Court below found that there were sufficient ground to proceed. Hence I find no irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the order. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. —————