Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3395 (ALL)

PRABHAWATI v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-11-13

OM PRAKASH VII

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of criminal case no. 46 of 2003 under Sections 500, 506 IPC (Lodhayee vs. Smt. Prabhawati and another) pending before Judicial Magistrate, Basti and also to set-aside/ quash the order dated 3.6.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2003 (Ram Nayan and another vs. Lodhayee and another). Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that? applicant no.1 had moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Basti on 28.11.2002 with the allegation that opposite party no.2 and some other persons had committed offence entering into her house and also took away idol of Lord Shiva and they were also trying? to take forcible possession of her house. Later on, a complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 before the Magistrate concerned with the allegations that the application dated 28.11.2002 moved by the applicant no.1 was based on false facts to lower down the image of the opposite party no.2 and others and with the act of the applicant, image of the opposite party no.2 was diminished in the society and before the police. The Magistrate recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the complaint and vide order dated 26.3.2003 summoned the applicants to face the trial for the offence under Sections 500 and 506 IPC. Against the said order, a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Basti, which was dismissed on 3.6.2003 after hearing both the parties. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the present application has been filed. I have heard Shri B.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record. It is submitted by Shri Mishra that no case is made out to summon the applicants to face the trial. The essential ingredients required to constitute offence under Sections 500 and 506 IPC are lacking. It is further submitted that? a stranger had moved application before the Superintendent of Police, Basti and the Magistrate concerned has not considered this fact while passing the summoning order and has also not considered the material available before it. It is next submitted that the signature on the application is forged and fake. It is further submitted that? a stranger had moved application before the Superintendent of Police, Basti and the Magistrate concerned has not considered this fact while passing the summoning order and has also not considered the material available before it. It is next submitted that the signature on the application is forged and fake. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the trial court and the revisional court have categorically recorded findings. The charges levelled against the applicants are constituted. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders. The questions raised by the applicants in this application may be raised before the trial court at appropriate stage. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. The court dealing with the complaint has to see only prima-facie case at the stage of summoning of an accused. In the present matter, not only the trial court but also the revisional court both have considered this aspect while passing the impugned orders. Statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have been recorded. The questions raised by the applicants that the application before the Superintendent of Police had been moved by an stranger can only be considered by the trial court because it requires evidence. This court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go through the evidence or cannot proceed to collect the evidence. The questions raised by the applicants that the application before the Superintendent of Police had been moved by an stranger can only be considered by the trial court because it requires evidence. This court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go through the evidence or cannot proceed to collect the evidence. In view of the above, this court is of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned orders. The application lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. The application is accordingly dismissed. ——————