Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2448 (ALL)

Raghu Raj Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-07-14

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2016
JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the records. 2. Applicant had filed complaint case no. 862 pf 2014 in which summoning order dated 18.07.2013 was passed, against which revision no. 717 of 2013 was filed, thereafter revisional court found that order of summoning was defecting because available evidences were not properly perused and considered. Therefore by judgement dated 27.05.2014, revision was allowed and matter was remanded to trial court for proper perusal of evidences and record and for passing appropriate order on merit. Thereafter learned Magistrate had again heard counsel for the complainant / applicant and passed summoning order dated 28.06.2014. This order was again challenged in criminal revision no. 565 of 2014. By judgement dated 17.03.2016 Additional Sessions Court No.2, Aligarh had allowed the revision and remanded the matter again to trial court with direction to properly peruse and appreciate evidences and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law. This impugned order dated 17.03.2016 has been challenged in present application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in earlier summoning order magistrate had summoned accused persons for four offences including u/s 457 IPC. But in latter summoning order dated 28.06.2014 accused were not summoned for offence under Section 457 of IPC which indicates that proper order has been passed after appreciation of evidences. 4. This contention was opposed by learned AGA, who pointed out that non speaking order was passed on 28.6.2014 which was erroneous. 5. A perusal of order dated 28.6.2014 indicates that in this order neither facts of the case were considered nor any appreciation of evidence was given except the name of accused persons. No fact relating to complaint or evidences was discussed and only it was mentioned that from perusal of evidences primafacie commission of offence under Sections 380, 504, 506 IPC is made out. From a perusal of this order reveals that it is non speaking order and has been passed against the earlier directions of lower revisional court given in judgement dated 27.5.2014 in criminal revision No. 717 of 2013. This is a gross error and has been committed by learned Magistrate at the time of passing impugned order. Any summoning order, howsoever brief, must reflect that before passing it the magistrate had understood the facts and had applied its judicial mind. 6. This is a gross error and has been committed by learned Magistrate at the time of passing impugned order. Any summoning order, howsoever brief, must reflect that before passing it the magistrate had understood the facts and had applied its judicial mind. 6. By impugned order dated 17.3.2016 revisional court in judgement of criminal revision no. 565 of 2014 had remanded the matter for passing appropriate order in accordance with law. After perusal of record and evidences there appears no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order that may requires exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this court. Therefore this revision can be admitted, and is accordingly dismissed. 7. The copy of this order be communicated to District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh for communicating to court concern.