High Court Court No. 41 dismissed the applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash lower court summoning orders in a civil dispute regarding unpaid painting wages. The court found no ground to quash the proceedings.
Prayer for quashing of summoning orders refused; applicant directed to surrender within 30 days to avail bail.
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. - 41
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36577 of 2019
Applicant :- Kalyan Chaubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard Sri Kranti Kiran Pandey holding brief of Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.9.2018 passed by learned A.C.J.M., court no. 10, Azamgarh in complaint case no. 2910 of 2017, Suryamani Vs. Kalyan Chaubey, under sections 420, 323, 504 I.P.C. relating to police station Mehnazpur District Azamgarh as well as order dated 26.6.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in criminal revision no. 54 of 2019 and the complaint case no. 2910 of 2017, Suryamani Vs. Kalyan Chaubey pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Corurt No. 10, Azamgarh.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and no criminal liability is made out on the part of the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village partibandi. This is a case of no injury. False story has been concocted by the opp. party no. 2. No offence is made out against the applicant. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment. It has been further submitted that the applicant has preferred a criminal revision against the impugned summoning order dated 6.9.2018 which was dismissed by lower revisional court by its judgment and order dated 26.6.2019. The judgement and order of lower revisional court is not in accordance with law.
Learned A.G.A. argued that the applicant has been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicant to face trial. There is no illegality or irregularity in the summoning order. The applicant has also preferred a criminal revision against the impugned summoning order which was dismissed by the lower revisional court. There is no illegality or
irregularity in impugned judgement and order passed by lower revisional court.
A perusal of record shows that the opp. party no. 2 has moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the applicant alleging therein that the opp. party no. 2 is a painter. The applicant met him and said to get his house painted. Thereafter, the opp. party no. 2 took contract of painting of the house of the applicant as per Rs. 4.00/- per sq. feet. The opp. party no. 2 along with others painters painted the house of the applicant and total amount of their wages is Rs. 48,000/-. The applicant paid only Rs. 10,600/- in two or three instalments during the painting work. On demand of rest amount of wages Rs. 37,000/- the applicant denied to pay the rest amount and started abusing in hurling manner and gave threatening if the demand of rest amount is made again. Learned Magistrate treated the application of the opp. party no. 2 as complaint and on the basis of statement of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has summoned the applicant to face trial. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision no. 54 of 2019 against the summoning order which was dismissed by the lower revisional court by its judgement and order dated 26.6.2019.
A perusal of impugned summoning order shows that the applicant has been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicant to face trial. I find no illegality or irregularity in the summoning order. Learned lower revisional court has also not found any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order. The Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the impugned orders of courts below as well as proceeding of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.10.2019 Gss
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order should be allowed given the existence of a prima facie case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Kalyan Chaubey
State Of U.P.
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
