Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 864 (ALL)

Noor Mohammad v. State of U. P.

2015-04-17

VIJAY PRAKASH PATHAK

body2015
JUDGMENT Vijay Prakash Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA. 2. Present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 26.02.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar dismissing the Criminal Revision No.51 of 2015 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.1.2015 passed by Addl.CJM, Kairana in Complaint Case No.2344/9 of 2014, Israna Vs. Noor Mohammad & another by which the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence is made out against the petitioner and the present complaint has been filed with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment only. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate without considering the entire material on record has illegally summoned the petitioner to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC. It is further contended that the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order has also been illegally dismissed by the learned lower revisoinal court without considering the entire material on record. It is further contended that now non-bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the learned court below after considering the entire material, including the allegations in the complaint, statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C and that of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has come to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC and accordingly summoned them to face trial for the said offences. It is also submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by learned court below as at present a prima facie case is to be seen and considered. It is further contended that the learned lower revisional court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order finding no legal basis to interfere in the same. 5. After considering the arguments advanced by the rival parties' counsel, the orders impugned along with all other material available on record, I find no infirmity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders impugned passed by the learned courts below. 5. After considering the arguments advanced by the rival parties' counsel, the orders impugned along with all other material available on record, I find no infirmity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders impugned passed by the learned courts below. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner. All the averments made on behalf of the petitioner are related to the disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. At this stage only prima facie 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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para- 10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 6. Accordingly the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the case as aforesaid are hereby refused. 7. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner appears/surrenders before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2005 Cri. LJ 755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, (2009) 4, SCC 437 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. 8. For a period of four weeks from today no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 9. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of finally.