Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1303 (ALL)

Kali Prasad @ Anil v. State of U. P.

2015-05-20

BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Bharat Bhushan, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 31.3.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No.180 of 2013 under Sections 352, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Bansi, District Siddhartha Nagar. 3. It appears that respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against the applicants alleging that applicants have assaulted and threatened him. An enquiry was conducted wherein the statements of complainant and his witnesses, namely, Suwash and Shrawan were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the learned Magistrate summoned the applicants to face trial for the offence under Sections 352, 504 and 506 I.P.C. This order is under challenge before this Court. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. 5. Learned AGA has submitted that available material is enough to summon accused persons and considering material on record, it can not be said that no evidence is made out against the applicant. 6. Learned Magistrate has summoned applicant (accused person) on the basis of preliminary inquiry conducted by him. At this stage, learned Magistrate is not required to conduct a roving and meticulous inquiry. The Apex Court in Sonu Gupta versus Deepak Gupta & others, ILC 2015-SC-CRL-Feb7 has held thus: "At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not." 7. Thus, legal position is very clear the Magistrate has to prima facie make up his mind on basis of material collected during inquiry. 8. Similarly power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can not be used to scuttle criminal proceeding in routine manner. Thus, legal position is very clear the Magistrate has to prima facie make up his mind on basis of material collected during inquiry. 8. Similarly power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can not be used to scuttle criminal proceeding in routine manner. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen 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. The prayer for quashing of proceedings is refused. The application is dismissed.