Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1549 (ALL)

Kuldeep Gautam v. State of U. P.

2021-12-14

AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA I

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Shamli at Chandausi in Complaint Case No.550/2020 (Smt. Pushparani vs. Kuldeep Gautam and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. 3. Foremost contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the impugned summoning order is not in conformity with the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. His further submission is that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned summoning order has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant's version of the incident, as stated in the complaint, is not substantiated by the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thus, he has contended that even prima facie no offence is disclosed against the revisionists, despite this fact, they have been summoned to face the trial which is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial. At this initial stage, the fact of innocence of the revisionists can also not be determined. 5. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the sufficiency of the material and the test to be applied at the stage of issue of process has been considered in the case of Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2012) 11 SCC 465 , wherein it has been reiterated that the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt". 6. Learned A.G.A. also submits that recording of detailed reason by the learned Magistrate while issuing process against the complainant is not required in view of the law laid down in Ms. 6. Learned A.G.A. also submits that recording of detailed reason by the learned Magistrate while issuing process against the complainant is not required in view of the law laid down in Ms. Sonia Gobind Gidwani & another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (83) ACC 312 (All). 7. On the basis of the aforesaid, he submits that no interference with the impugned summoning order and proceedings is warranted at this stage and, therefore, the application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the records, it transpires that the allegations in the complaint have been found to be duly corroborated by the statement made on oath by the complainant during the course of examination under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also the statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry made by the learned Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. The impugned order has been passed referring the aforesaid statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and only thereafter, impugned summoning order has been passed. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gambhirsinh R. Dekare vs. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and another, AIR 2013 SC 1590 , at the stage of taking cognizance in a complaint case, it is not permissible to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, the impugned summoning order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. However, it is needless to mention here that in the eventuality of filing of any bail application by the revisionists, the learned court below shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with the settled law.