Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3340 (ALL)

Uday Bhan Singh v. State of U. P

2015-10-27

PRATYUSH KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Pratyush Kumar, J. By the instant petition, the petitioners have assailed the correctness of the summoning order dated 11th April, 2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, District-Faizabad, whereby the petitioners were summoned to stand trial under sections 323, 324, 392 & 504 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. They have been falsely implicated, as a counter blast of the criminal case pending against the opposite party no.2. He further submits that no reliable evidence was adduced by the complainant in support of the allegations contained in the complaint. The petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed. 3. On behalf of opposite party no.2, these arguments have been repelled and it has been submitted that on 20.1.2011, at 11.00 a.m., opposite party no.2 was assaulted, beaten by legs, sticks and knife. Rs.2000/- were forcibly snatched from him. According to him, in support of the complaint, besides complainant two witnesses Kripa Shanker and Jagat Pal Singh have been examined. 4. Perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 5. It is true that there is litigation between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 on account of marital discord between the grandson of the opposite party no.2 and daughter of the petitioner no.1. However, at the stage of summoning, the magistrate has jurisdiction merely to see that from the complaint, ingredients of the offences are made out, there is prima-facie evidence to proceed further. At this stage, the magistrate has no jurisdiction either to weigh the evidence or find out its adequacy or inadequacy. In the impugned order, facts in brief have been mentioned. Evidence adduced in support of the allegations have been taken into consideration thereafter it has been opined that against the petitioners, prima-facie case is made out only then the petitioners were summoned. 6. In the impugned order, the magistrate has neither committed any legal error nor it contained any factual infirmity, hence, petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The petition under section 482 is hereby, dismissed. 8. 6. In the impugned order, the magistrate has neither committed any legal error nor it contained any factual infirmity, hence, petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The petition under section 482 is hereby, dismissed. 8. However, considering the factual matrix of the case, it is directed that in case petitioners appear before the court below within 30 days from the date of the order and move their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs.State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 9. For a period of 30 days from today or till the petitioners surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, this order shall stand cancelled without reference to this Court.