Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2567 (ALL)

MERAZUDDIN v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-07-26

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Shiva Kant Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri V.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no.1 and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Hamirpur, passed in Special Case 84 of 2012 (Merazuddin vs. Arvind and others) under Sections 394, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Rath, District- Hamirpur. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special (D.A.A.), Hamirpur, has wrongly analysed the evidence available on record under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and arrived at an erroneous conclusion, resultantly, the complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the order passed by the court below is against the evidence on record. The learned Sessions Judge did not apply it's judicial mind, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. The scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. needs to be quoted as follows:- "Scope.- The revisional jurisdiction does not postulate re-appreciation of evidence, but that should be appreciated in the light of the limitation on the right to go in appeal, Ilsamuddin v. State, 1975 CriLJ 841, 842 (Del HC). G. Vasudevan v. K.M. Malabari, 1978 Mad LJ (Cri) 617; Bundoo v. Smt. Mahrul Nisa, 1978 All LJ 1002 (All HC)." "Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923 " "(C) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S. 204 - Issuance of Process - Words "Sufficient grounds for proceeding" in S.204 - Suggest formation of opinion only after application of mind and on basis of sufficient material - Such formation of opinion to be stated in order itself - Summoning appellants as accused without recording proper satisfaction by special Judge - Liable to be set aside. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process under S. 204 and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad-in-law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect. However, there has to be a proper satisfaction in this behalf which should be duly recorded by the Special Judge on the basis of material on record." "P.S. Meherhomji vs. K.T. Vijay Kumar and others (2015) 1 SCC 788 " "B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 204 and 190 - Issuance of process - Mode of exercise of power - Held, judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment - Court should be circumspect and judicious and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass persons needlessly. (Para 13) C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 204 and 190 - Order taking cognizance by Magistrate summoning accused - Requirements of - Held, summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter - Hence, order taking cognizance by Magistrate summoning accused, must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of case and law applicable thereto. (Para 14)" Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (D.A.A.), Hamirpur after analysing the evidence available on record under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has arrived at the right conclusion and has rightly dismissed the complaint. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. No interference is warranted at this stage. The criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.