Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4158 (ALL)

Hari Shanker Saini v. State of U. P.

2016-12-23

ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II

body2016
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Srivastava-II,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, court No.8, Raebareli in Revision No. 69 of 2015 and also the impugned order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Court No. 12, Raebareli in Complaint Case No. 1450 of 2014, Ram Sajivan Maurya Vs. Hari Shanker Maurya and others, by which the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial under sections 323,504 and 506 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 is a counter blast of the civil and criminal proceedings, which have been launched by the petitioners against opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that several persons have beaten the complainant by lathi, danda, kicks and fists, but there is no injury, which makes the complainant version improbable. It is also submitted that in order to harass the accused, complaint has been filed which has been wrongly entertained by the learned Magistrate. Even the revisional court has not considered the submissions of the petitioners and the revisional order is passed. Per contra, learned counsel AGA submits that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 03.02.2015 after applying his judicial mind. It is apparent from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate has not summoned the petitioners under section 452 IPC., rather he found a prima facie case against the petitioners only under sections 323,504 and 506 IPC. Accordingly, they were summoned under those sections only. In Sonu Gupta versus Deepak Gupta (2015) Vol.3 SCC 424, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that : - "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 Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he 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. (Para 8) Impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that the learned Magistrate has applied his judicial mind on the assertions made by the complainant as well as witnesses. Learned Magistrate has minutely scrutinized them, thereafter found that no prima facie case to summon the accused petitioners under section 452 IPC is made out. Consequently, the accused petitioners were summoned under sections 323,504 and 506 IPC only. Learned revisional court has also rightly placed reliance upon Alok Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (9), SCC 759. It has been held in catena of judgments of the Apex Court that at the stage of summoning the accused in complaint case, learned Magistrate has arrived at the conclusion that prima facie, there is material to proceed against the petitioners. At this stage, learned Magistrate, is not obliged to see as to whether conviction can be held or not? I am of the view that learned Magistrate has rightly exercised his jurisdiction. This petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.