Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 502 (ALL)

RAIS AHMAD v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-10

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 29th August, 2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 3052 of 2012, Rais Ahmad v. Shakir and others, and the judgment and order dated 27th March, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh dismissing Criminal Revision No. 901 of 2014 filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Judicial Magistrate. 2. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the instant writ petition reads as under: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the order dated 29.8.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 3052 of 2012, Rais Ahmad v. Sakir and others, and judgment/order dated 27.3.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 901 of 2014, Rais Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, insofar as not summoning the accused opposite party No. 2 to 12 for the offence under Section 195A, IPC (Annexure 1 and 2 respectively to this petition) and to direct the Courts below to summon the accused-respondent No. 2 to 12 in all the appropriate sections, and/or to pass any such other and further interim order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner filed a complaint case under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., wherein he prayed that a criminal case be registered against the respondent Nos. 2 to 12 under Sections 195A and 506 I.P.C. on the ground that the respondent Nos. 2 to 12 had kidnapped a close relative (Mamera brother) of the petitioner, namely, Kamal on 24/25 October, 2009 and murdered him. With regard to the said incident a First Information Report was lodged against the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 12 at Police Station Shasni Gate, District Aligarh which was registered as Case Crime No. 694 of 2009, under Sections 364, 302, 334, 201 I.P.C.. In the said criminal case, after investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 I.P.C., and the trial is pending being S.T. No. 502 of 2010, State v. Shakil and others, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh. In the said criminal case, after investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 I.P.C., and the trial is pending being S.T. No. 502 of 2010, State v. Shakil and others, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh. In the said trial all the accused have been enlarged on bail by the High Court. 4. The petitioner claims to be authorized pairokar of the complainant in Session Trial No. 502 of 2010. It is stated that the respondent Nos. 2 to 12 after obtaining bail have threatened the petitioner to desist from pursuing the said session trial against accused. Therefore, the petitioner made complaint before the police authorities concerned on 30th May, 2012 but no action has been taken against the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 12. The petitioner having no other option made an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Aligarh for summoning the accused/respondents for offence under Sections 195-A and 506 I.P.C. The petitioner and other witnesses have also got examined themselves before the learned Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate has summoned the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 12 only for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. by the order dated 29th August, 2014, which has been challenged in this petition. 5. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate summoning the respondents only for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C., the petitioner went in revision before the District and Sessions Judge being Criminal Revision No. 901 of 2014 for summoning the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 12 herein for the offence under Section 195-A I.P.C. also. The learned Session Judge has dismissed the revision of the petitioner by order dated 27th March, 2015 holding that the petitioner/complainant can move an application under Section 244 Cr.P.C. for framing charges under Section 195A I.P.C.. 6. The revisional Court also found that the learned Magistrate on the basis of the statement made by the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was of the opinion that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is made out for summoning the accused. 6. The revisional Court also found that the learned Magistrate on the basis of the statement made by the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was of the opinion that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is made out for summoning the accused. The revisional Court took a view that in the revisional jurisdiction it would not be appropriate to interfere in the order of the learned Magistrate, who after considering the material on record formed an opinion that the accused were liable to be summoned under Section 506 I.P.C. The revisional Court has also found that the complainant at an appropriate stage when there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the ingredients of Section 195-A I.P.C. were also attracted, can move an application under Section 244 Cr.P.C. to frame the additional charge under Section 195-A I.P.C. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order of the revisional Court, I find that the revisional Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in taking the said view. 9. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is very limited. Proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution are only supervisory which the Court should use sparingly to keep the subordinate Court within their jurisdiction and not for correcting their error. It is not an appellate power to correct every error. 10. Recently, the Supreme Court has considered the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in the case of Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 , and held as under: “25. ...Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all the High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of tribunals or authorities or Courts other than judicial Courts. There are no precedents in India for the High Courts to issue writs to the subordinate Courts. Control of working of the subordinate Courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional power or power of superintendence under Article 227. Orders of the Civil Court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or Courts other than judicial/Civil Courts. Control of working of the subordinate Courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional power or power of superintendence under Article 227. Orders of the Civil Court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or Courts other than judicial/Civil Courts. While appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by the statutes, power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional. The expression “inferior Court” is not referable to the judicial Courts, as rightly observed in the referring order [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616 ] in paras 26 and 27 quoted above.” 11. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere in revisional order. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.