Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 131 (UTT)

Rajendra v. Ganga Devi

2020-02-25

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) - The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 19.08.2017 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of complaint case no. 2688 of 2016, Smt. Ganga vs. Rajendra and others, pending in the court of learned II Additional Civil Judge (SD)/Juridical Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udha Singh Nagar (for short, the case). By order dated 19.08.2017, the petitioner Sonu has been summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 452, 504, 506 and 354 IPC and other petitioners have been summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 452, 504 & 506 IPC. 2. Facts briefly stated are that the respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code against the petitioners. This application was treated as a complaint. According to it, on 02.05.2016 at 4:30 P.M., the petitioners collectively entered into the house of the respondent, abused her and assaulted her with lathi, danda , fist and kicks and daughters of the respondent were molested. After the inquiry under Section 200 and 202 of the Code , by the impugned order the petitioners have been summoned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complaint is a counterblast of an FIR lodged by the petitioner Rajendra against the two sons of respondent for various offences under Penal Code as well as under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is also argued that in order to pressurize the petitioners to enter into a compromise, false case has been filed by the respondent; there is no independent witness. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also drew the attention of the Court to para 3 of the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code filed by the respondent, wherein, it is stated that after the incident, two sons of respondent were arrested by the Police and it is argued that, in fact, the act was committed by the sons of the respondent only. 5. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it is argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and the factual aspects that have been raised, may be taken in defence, in the trial. 6. 5. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it is argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and the factual aspects that have been raised, may be taken in defence, in the trial. 6. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code, the principles which governs exercise of jurisdiction under this section are well settled. The scope is too wide but restricted by the settled principles. In case, prima facie , case is not made out definitely, intervention in these proceedings are warranted but meticulous examination of the evidence is not expected of, they are matter to be left to be tested during trial. 7. Instant is the case against the summoning order. It is also a settled law that summoning should not be in a routine or mechanical manner. The Magistrate is required to apply its judicial mind while summoning the accused. After all, the person is required to undergo trial. At this stage of summoning an accused, prima facie, case is to be seen. 8. Petitioners have filed a copy of the FIR as annexure-4 to this petition, which is lodged by the petitioner Rajendra against three persons. This FIR was lodged on 23 rd June, 2016. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the FIR is against the sons of the respondent and it was lodged after obtaining an order under Section 156 (3) of the Code. This FIR reveals that application vide Section 156 (3) of the Code was written on 5 th May, 2016. Undoubtedly, after the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against Shyam Babu and Jagdish, who according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, are sons of the respondent. Fact remains that the FIR of the petitioners was lodged on 23 rd June, 2016 and it also a fact that the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code was filed by the respondent on 10 th May, 2016. The date of incident in the FIR lodged by the petitioners and the date of the incident as stated in the application filed by the respondent are different. 9. Complaint of the respondent was filed on 10 th May, 2016, whereas as stated the FIR of the petitioner Rajendra was lodged on 23 rd June, 2016. The date of incident in the FIR lodged by the petitioners and the date of the incident as stated in the application filed by the respondent are different. 9. Complaint of the respondent was filed on 10 th May, 2016, whereas as stated the FIR of the petitioner Rajendra was lodged on 23 rd June, 2016. Though it is based on an application under Section 156(3) of the Code which purportedly was presented on 05.05.2016, but merely on this basis, at this stage, it cannot be said that the complaint is a counterblast. While passing the impugned order the court below has discussed all the materials also. The summoning order is not in a routine and mechanical manner. It is based on the statements under Section 200 and 202 of the Code. It has also recorded that the respondents ankle joint was fractured. Therefore, this Court is of the view that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. There is no reason to interfere. The petition under Section 482 of the Code deserves to be dismissed. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that directions may be issued that the bail application of the petitioners be considered on the same day, when they surrender before the court concerned. 11. The petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned and apply for their bail, the same may be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.