Dismissed

Virendra @ Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2022A227/10268/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a Magistrate's summoning order. The Court found no error in the order despite the petitioner's allegations of forgery, noting that summoning is not a routine matter and the revisional court did not err in its assessment of the evidence.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed.

Virendra @ Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10268 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Virendra @ Virendra Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra,learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been presented with the prayer to direct the court below to summon opposite party no.2 in additional offences under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. in complaint case no.4898 of 2018 (Virendra vs. Pawan).

¶7

Facts relevant are as below:-

¶8

The petitioner Virendra @ Virendra Singh filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the opposite party no.1 Pawan Kumar borrowed Rs.10 lac from him and returned only Rs.one lac. He kept on avoiding payment of remaining Rs.9 lac. The petitioner lost his cheque book, passbook, ATM Card etc. when he was going to some place with opposite party no.2 on 30.09.2013. However, after a gap of several years i.e. on 03.08.2018 he received a notice for payment of certain amount on dishonor of cheque purportedly issued by him to the accused.

¶9

The petitioner has come up with a strange story that his important papers including cheque book etc. were stolen by opposite party no.2. His cheque book was now being misused by putting forged signature of him on a cheque and getting the same dishonored from the bank. On the basis of his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. a complaint case was registered. Evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.was recorded. The Magistrate summoned opposite party no.2 only under Section 406 I.P.C.. In the above background it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that not only an offence under Section 406 I.P.C.

¶10

but offences under additional sections as aforesaid are also made out but the revision preferred by him against the summoning order for the purpose of adding other sections was wrongly dismissed by the revisional court without taking into consideration the evidence on record.

¶11

I went through all the papers including the statements given by the complainant and his two witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.. This is a settled legal position that summoning of accused persons is not a routine matter. The legal process cannot be set in motion in a non serious manner without application of mind. The court is not bound to believe fanciful stories. A Magistrate is not expected to proceed mechanically on the basis of bald statements of the witnesses. He is expected to apply his judicial mind before passing summoning order or any of the judicial orders.

¶12

06 It may importantly be noted that during the course of the argument the learned counsel for the petitioner frankly admitted that witnesses only deposed about exchange of money between two sides. He also admitted that a copy of cheque purportedly being misused by opposite party which forms the basis of his story and on the basis whereof admittedly complaint case filed by the other side under Section 138 of N.I. Act is being proceeded against him, was not filed in the instant complaint case.

¶13

In view of such unignorable lapses on the part of revisionist and all the facts and circumstances before me I do not find any error in the impugned summoning order dated 05.04.2019 so as to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.11.2022

¶16

Asha

¶17

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.11.24 09:13:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virendra @ Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra @ Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Juvenile (X) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramanand Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munneelal and 34 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor X Vs State of U.P. and Another