High Court dismissed Article 227 petition; refused to interfere with rejected revision despite prior quashing applications; imposed costs and directed coercive measures.
Cost imposed; coercive measures directed; no interference in impugned order.
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. - 66
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 303 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rameshwar Dayal Gangwar And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Gopal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Gopal, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has filed by the applicants for setting aside order dated 26.11.2019 passed by Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.4, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No.445 of 2018.
The brief background of the case is that opposite party no.2 lodged F.I.R. for an offence of gang-rape against the applicants vide Case Crime No.996 of 2017 under Sections 376-D, 328 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly. However, the police submitted final report on 31.10.2017 before the concerned court on the basis of alleged alibi of the applicants doubting the prosecution version of gang-rape. The opposite party no.2 filed protest petition along with affidavit. Learned Magistrate considering statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and other evidence and gravity and nature of offence committed by the applicants, rejected the final report and summoned the applicants vide order dated 28.07.2018 which was a reasoned order. Learned Magistrate on being satisfied that there was ample evidence collected during investigation in the Case Diary summoned them for the offences punishable under Sections 376-D, 328 and 506 I.P.C. The applicants, Rameshwar Dayal Gangwar and Natthu Lal preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc. Application No.28529 of 2018 for quashing summoning order dated 28.7.2018 which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2018. Other accused,applicant no.3, Vinod Katiyar filed Criminal Misc.Application (U/s 482) No.27964 of 2018 in which the prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 28.07.2018 was refused by this Court by an order dated 16.08.2018. However, by aforesaid both orders, the applicants were directed to appear before the court concerned within 30 days from the date of the order and apply for bail and the same was to be heard and decided strictly in accordance with law, after hearing public
prosecutor.
It appears that the applicants did not put in appearance before the court concerned and apply for bail, rather suppressing the fact of rejection of abovenoted applications, the applicants filed Criminal Revision No.445 of 2018 before Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Bareilly against the summoning order dated 28.07.2018. The revision was heard by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4,Bareilly and vide impugned order dated 26.11.2019 rejected the same especially on the ground that firstly the applicants have already approached this Court vide orders dated 16.08.2018 and 18.08.2018 against the impugned order which have been dismissed. Be it noted that the applicants had an audacity to challenge the order within less than two months of rejection of their applications on 6.10.2018. In this behalf, learned A.G.A. raised objection apprising the Court that the applicants have already approached this Court against the impugned order and the revision has been filed by suppressing the fact of dismissal of their applications and they have succeeded in their evil design of getting the case pending for more than one year. The applicants have challenged the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Bareilly merely with prayer for staying further proceedings of Case Crime No.996 of 2017, Case No.98 of 2018 under Sections 376-D, 328 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly as well as operation and effect of impugned order dated 26.11.2019 passed by Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.4, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No.445 of 2018.
This Court is of the view that there is no need to hear further in this matter inasmuch as the prayer for quashing the order has already been considered by this Court as noted above and the applications for quashing the summoning order has been refused. However, considering the audacity of the applicants who are unscrupulous litigants and have not complied with orders of this Court dated 16.08.2018 and 18.08.2018 and have not obtained bail till date and enjoyed the stay order in the aforesaid revision on the basis of suppression of fact that their applications have already been rejected. Be that as it may, this is second petition by the applicants challenging the same summoning order, I do not propose to interfere in the impugned order dated 26.11.2019.
The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, accordingly, dismissed. However, as the applicants have deliberately filed revision before the court below, challenging the impugned summoning order dated 27.08.2018 in order to stall the case against them by hook or by crook and have wasted
precious time of the Courts, I imposed upon them a cost of Rs.10,000/- each which shall be deposited by them before the court below within two months. In the event of failure to do so, the court below shall recover the same as arrears of land revenue. The cost so realized from the applicants, shall be paid to the victim, opposite party no.2 towards expenses of litigation as she is running from pillar to post for seeking justice, after due verification.
The court below is further directed to adopt all possible coercive measures against the applicants for securing their attendance before it and ensure that they are put to trial.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to court concerned forthwith for ensuring its necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 13.1.2020 MN/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 227 writ petition should be allowed to quash the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting the revision against the summoning order in a gang rape case.
Whether the High Court should impose costs on petitioners who filed a revision to stall proceedings after prior applications to quash were rejected.
Whether coercive measures should be directed to secure the attendance of defaulting petitioners for trial.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rameshwar Dayal Gangwar
Natthu Lal
State of U.P.
Ragul Bhargava
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Bareilly
Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.4,
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
