This petition under Article 227 Challenged summoning order and dismissal of Criminal Revision. The court held disputed facts require trial, no prima facie ground for interference, and dismissed the petition.
Petition under Article 227 dismissed; no good ground shown to interfere with lower court orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 23
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1646 of 2019
Petitioner :- Neelam Rastogi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Harish Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State-respondent.
Present petition under Article 227 has been filed by petitioner assailing the order dated 2.2.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Revision No.188 of 2018 as well as summoning order dated 12.9.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Moradabad in Complaint Case No.2419 of 2018 (Smt. Neeru Sharma Vs. Smt. Neelam and others) and subsequent proceeding thereof.
It appears from the record that Smt. Neeru Sharma filed a complaint against accused-petitioner Neelam Rastogi and two others under Sections 376, 511, 452, 392, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC wherein Magistrate took congnizance and recorded the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and her witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 Deepmala and P.W.-2 Savitri Devi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate, after perusing allegations made in the complaint and another evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., found sufficient prima facie evidence and ground for proceeding, passed the impugned order of summoning against the accused-petitioner Neelam under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC for facing trial alongwith other coaccused Rajiv and Pawan Kumar under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 IPC.
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned summoning order, only accusedpetitioner filed Criminal Revision no.188 of 2018 which came to be heard and dismissed by Sessions Judge, Moradabad vide judgment and order dated 2.2.2019.
Both orders of court below are under challenge in this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence against the petitioner is made out and present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. It is a counter blast case filed by the complainant/opposite party no.2 Neeru Sharma in order to save herself from the criminal case which has been filed against her and her husband. It is further contended that complainant
has already been chargesheeted in NCR No.264 of 2017 lodged by petitioner herself. It is further contended that present criminal case is an abuse of process of court. He pointed out certain papers in support of his contentions.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer.
It is settled legal position of law that at the time of issuing process, trial court has only to see whether from the contents of complaint, prima facie offence is disclosed or not. At the state of passing order under Section 204 Cr.P.C, court has only to see that whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding or not.
From perusal of the material available on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner. All the submission made at the Bar relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage, only prima-facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283.
I do not say any good ground so as to justify interference in the matter.
Petition under Article 227 is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2019
Vivek Kr.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court should interfere with summoning order when dispute relates to disputed questions of fact.
Whether prima facie offence is made out against petitioner at the state of proceedings under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
Whether petition under Article 227 reveals good grounds to justify interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶14
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶14
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaReferred¶14
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶14
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283) · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Neelam Rastogi
State Of U.P.
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
