Dismissed

Dharam Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2018CRLP/9336/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this criminal writ petition seeking to quash summoning orders under IPC and SC/ST Act. Upholding concurrent findings of lower courts, the Court held that the summoning was justified as prima facie cases were made out. Bail will be considered if petitioners surrender within two months; no coercive action permitted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dharam Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9336 of 2006

¶3

Petitioner :- Dharam Singh & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

None is present for the petitioners Heard learned A.G.A. for the State.Perused the record. The petition is being decided on merit.

¶6

This writ petition has been preferred by Dharam Singh and Jati Ram against State of U.P. and Phool Singh with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 18.8.2005 passed by CJM, Mathura whereby petitioners have been summoned under sections 323/504/506 IPC & section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, and order dated 27.4.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 592 of 2005 (Dharam Singh & another vs. State of U.P. & another) whereby revision was dismissed.

¶7

From perusal of record, it transpires that after recording statement of complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses namely, P.W.-1 Chandra Pal and P.W.-2 Lal Chand under section 202 Cr.P.C. who have supported the complaint case, impugned order dated 18.8.2005 summoning petitioners under sections 323/504/506 IPC & section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, was passed. Summoning order was rightly rejected by the revisional Court.

¶8

On the point of facts, both the Trial and revisional Court have given concurrent finding and view taken by both the Courts is plausible view. Hence no interference is called for in the impugned summoning order. Section 203 Cr.P.C. and 204 Cr.P.C. are quoted hereunder for ready reference.

¶9

"Section 203 Cr.P.C.. Dismissal of complaint. If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing."

¶10

"Section 204 Cr.P.C.. Issue of process.

¶11

(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case

¶12

appears to be-

¶13

(a) a summons- case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

¶14

(b) a warrant- case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶15

(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub- section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.

¶16

(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing every summons or warrant issued under sub- section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.

¶17

(4) When by any law for the time being in force any processfees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.

¶18

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87."

¶19

According to Section 203 Cr.P.C., Magistrate can dismiss the complaint after recording statement of complainant and witnesses and result of inquiry or investigation. Magistrate has power under section 204 Cr.P.C. to issue summon or warrant.

¶20

Moreover, in the case of Jancy Nelson D'Souza v. Nel D' Souza, 2004 Crl 1690(1692)(Bom), Bombay High Court has held that at the time of taking cognizance of the complaint presented before a Magistrate, the Magistrate has to deal with the said complaint in view of the allegations made in the complaint itself and he has to find out whether, prima facie offence has been spelt out. At that stage it is not necessary for him to make a detailed enquiry touching niceties.

¶21

In the case of Jia Lal Sharma vs. State , 1982 Crl.J. 1913(Del) the Delhi High Court has held that for the issue of process against the accused it has to be only seen whether prima facie case has been made out.

¶22

In the case of Parsoon Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P., 1999 Crl. J 3375( All) , this Court has held that where allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose alleged offences, summoning order is justified.

¶23

In the case of Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 1921 , Apex Court has held that at the time of issuing process, the Magistrate has to determine whether the material placed before it, is sufficient for proceeding against the accused. The term 'sufficient to proceed' is different and distinct from the terms' sufficient to prove and establish guilt'. At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously as if it was the trial Court nor is he required to scrutinize the evidence by the same standard by which the trial Court scrutinizes the evidence at the stage of framing charge.

¶24

In the case of Anil Saran vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 204 , the Court has held that the defence open to the accused is not to be seen at the time of issuance of process.

¶25

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders. There is no infirmity or illegality in said orders. The prayer made in the writ petition is refused. Stay order, if any stands vacated.

¶26

However, it is observed that in case petitioners surrender and apply for bail within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) . For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the petitioners to surrender before the court concerned.

¶27

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

Order Date :- 8.10.2018

¶29

P.P.

Dharam Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dharam Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Lal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rahmat Ali and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sipahi Ram Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Asif Javed Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Gudil @ Sushil Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others