This petition challenged orders refusing to summon accused under Section 392 IPC for robbery allegations. The court held no illegality existed and dismissed the petition.
Petition dismissed; orders of the lower courts upholding the summoning order without Section 392 IPC charges remain unchallenged.
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. - 82
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1113 of 2020
Petitioner :- Mohd. Abad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Shankar Dubey,Girraj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed to set-aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2019 passed by 2nd Additional Session Judge, Kasganj in Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2018 (CNR No. UPKR010008542018 Mohd. Abad Vs. State of U.P. and others) and order dated 16.2.2018 passed by C.J.M. Kasganj in Case No. 2223 of 2017.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in complaint the allegation of robbery was levelled against O.P. Nos. 4 to 7 but the learned Magistrate has summoned the O.P. Nos. 4 to 7 under section 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC. Offence of robbery was also prima facie made out but the learned Magistrate had not summoned the O.P. Nos. 4 to 7 under section 392 IPC due to which the petitioner filed a criminal revision no. 152 of 2018 against summoning order dated 16.12.2018 which was dismissed by the lower revisional court vide order dated 28.11.2019 stating therein that the petitioner has opportunity to adduce the evidence before framing of charge with regard to robbery. It has further been submitted that offence under section 392 IPC is made out against O.P. Nos. 4 to 7. The learned Magistrate ought to have summoned the O.P. Nos. 4 to 7 under section 392 IPC.
On the other hand; learned A.G.A. argued that the summoning order has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on the basis of evidence available on record. The lower revisional court has also not found any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order. It has further been argued that the petitioner may adduce evidence before framing of charge and at that stage the trial court may also frame charge under section 392 IPC. At this stage there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and orders of courts below.
A perusal of record shows that O.P. Nos. 4 to 7 have been summoned to face trial under section 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC. The learned lower revisional court has also not found any
illegality or irregularity in the summoning order dated 16.2.2018. At the stage of framing of charge the court below is free to consider about the allegation of robbery on the basis of evidence adduced by petitioner under section 244 Cr.P.C.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders of courts below, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.2.2020 Masarrat
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the lower courts' order declining to summon accused under Section 392 IPC for robbery.
Whether a Magistrate erred in not summoning offenders for an offence under Section 392 IPC at the summons stage.
Mohd. Abad
State Of U.P.
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
