Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2645 (ALL)

Ritesh Ranjan v. State Of U. P.

2017-11-15

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Chandra Shekhar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 472 of 2013-Harcharan Vs. Ritesh Ranjan), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad by which the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad has dismissed the application of the accused person Ritesh Ranjan presented under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. for discharge of the accused person Ritesh Ranjan from the charges in which he has been summoned by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad vide it's order dated 04.05.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the informant Dr. Ritesh Ranjan son of Yugal Kishor Singh, resident of House No. 188, Lumbani Apartment Kaushambi, Sector 14, Ghaziabad (U.P.) has submitted a written application before the Incharge of Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad which was registered as F.I.R. 4. The F.I.R., which is in Hindi Vernacular in narrow compass, is enumerated as below:- 5. The abovementioned informant Dr. Ritesh Ranjan has submitted that in his apartment few children were playing along with his children. Meanwhile one carriage (Theli) was touched by some children and hit one bike which was placed nearby. Due to this, the owner of the bike who was standing there, has beaten his son and Sankalp Saxena son of Vinay Saxena who was playing with his son. In this scuffle, his son received injury in the right eye and right ear and Sankalp also received injury on his right ear. On intervention by his wife, three boys named Bhaskar, Vipin and third brother whose name was not known, summoned their parents. All the five persons also started quarreling with his wife. His wife came inside the house along with their children. They narrated all the incident to him. Suddenly all those five persons entered in his house and started beating and by brandishing a knife hurled life threat and abuses at them and went away from his house. The father of Sankalp also came who had seen the incident. Several inmates of the society also gathered. They narrated all the incident to him. Suddenly all those five persons entered in his house and started beating and by brandishing a knife hurled life threat and abuses at them and went away from his house. The father of Sankalp also came who had seen the incident. Several inmates of the society also gathered. This incident was of 1.30 hours in the day. His report might be lodged and legal action be taken. Their medicolegal/medical examinations took place at Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan, Karkardooma, Delhi-110032 which were submitted along with the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged on 30.10.2012 at 8.20 hours at Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad. Charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons Bhaskar, Harcharan and Vinay Singh. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that to counter the charge sheet, one of the accused persons namely Harcharan has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against Ritesh Ranjan, Smt. Unknown, Vinay Saxena and Smt. Roli under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 452, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)11 SC/ST Act, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad and the same was registered as complaint case by the Magistrate seized with the territorial jurisdiction of the matter. Thereafter statement of Harcharan was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses Vinay and Bhaskar both sons of Harcharan under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad has summoned the accused persons Ritesh Ranjan and Smt. Roli under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 SC/ST Act vide it's order dated 04.05.2013. 7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that against the order dated 04.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 No. 26638 of 2013-Dr. Reetesh Ranjan Vs. State of U.P. and another, was preferred before this Court and vide order dated 6.8.2013 the applicant Dr. Reetesh Ranjan was directed to move an application for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. within 60 days from the date of the order. 8. In compliance with the aforementioned order dated 6.8.2013, the accused-revisionist Ritesh Ranjan has presented an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. on 03.09.2013 for his discharge from the alleged offences. Reetesh Ranjan was directed to move an application for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. within 60 days from the date of the order. 8. In compliance with the aforementioned order dated 6.8.2013, the accused-revisionist Ritesh Ranjan has presented an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. on 03.09.2013 for his discharge from the alleged offences. The same was contested before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad and after hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad has dismissed the aforementioned application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. of Dr. Ritesh Ranjan for his discharge; by passing a detailed and speaking order on merits. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the summoning order dated 04.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad has been passed without assigning any reason and only the accused persons Ritesh Ranjan and Smt. Roli have been summoned for the alleged offences as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that this is not a cross case because according to the F.I.R. lodged by Ritesh Ranjan, the place of occurrence was totally different as mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the applicant Harcharan which was later on converted into a complaint case. The offence under Section 3(1)10 SC/ST Act is not constituted because the insult which intend to humiliate the complainant Harcharan was not within the public view and whatever incident took place, it was inside the Flat No./House No. 188, Lumbani Apartment Kaushambi, Sector 14, Ghaziabad (U.P.). 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited following rulings:- (1) Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P., (SC), 2009 Cri LJ 350 : 2008(9) JT 543 . (2) Akaram Farruki @ Chunmun v. State of U.P. (Allahabad), 2016 (167) AIC 872: 2016(96) ACrC 742: 2016(11) ADJ 23. (3) Daya Bhatnagar v. State (Delhi) 2004 (109) DLT 915 : 2004(2) JCC 1136. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that this case is covered under Section 210 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad suffers from no illegality. 12. At the very outset, it is evident that the submission made by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 regarding application of Section 210 Cr.P.C. is wholly misconceived. 12. At the very outset, it is evident that the submission made by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 regarding application of Section 210 Cr.P.C. is wholly misconceived. In the present case, the provision of Section 210 Cr.P.C. is not attracted. 13. While discussing the whole matter, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad has mentioned that one F.I.R. was registered in Case Crime No. 1608 of 2012, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. at the Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad and the F.I.R. lodged by Dr. Ritesh Ranjan regarding the incident was dated 29.10.2012 at about 1.30 hours in the day in which charge sheet has been submitted against the accused persons Bhaskar Singh, Harcharan and Vinay Singh alias Vikki under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. by the Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad. 14. Now coming to the Application No. 1247 of 2012 filed by the applicant Harcharan against Ritesh Ranjan, Smt. Unknown, Vinay Saxena and Smt. Roli under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 452, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)11 SC/ST Act, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, the date of the incident has been mentioned as 29.10.2012 at about 1.00 P.M. and place of occurrence has been mentioned as Flat No. 49 Lumbani Apartment No. 1 Kaushambi, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad. It is noteworthy that in the F.I.R. lodged by Dr. Ritesh Ranjan, the informant Dr. Ritesh Ranjan has mentioned his address as 186 Lumbani Apartment Kaushambi, Sector 14, Ghaziabad, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad. 15. While discussing the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the place of occurrence in both the matters is the same. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad has specifically mentioned that no new facts were brought in the notice of the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad which may make the learned court seized with the matter to come to the conclusion that no case against the accused person is made out and he is entitled for discharge. The evidence which was adduced by the complainant regarding the alleged incident which took place on 29.10.2012, no conclusion could be drawn by the learned court seized with the matter that the alleged incident did not occur in the matter in general course of the incident. 16. 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, Islamuddin v. State, 1975 Cri LJ 841, 842 (Del HC): See also G. Vasudevan v. K.M. Malabari, 1978 Mad LJ (Cri) 617; Bundoo v. Smt. Mahrul Nisa, 1978 All LJ 1002 (All HC). 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is evident that the impugned order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad suffers from no illegality, impropriety and perversity. No interference is warranted at this stage. The revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed on merits.