In an article 227 writ petition, the High Court considered the quashing of a summoning and revisional order in a criminal case involving sections of the IPC. The bench dismissed the petition, holding that no grounds existed to set aside the 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. - 34
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 360 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rizwan And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to get quashed/set aside the summoning order dated 03.06.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras in Complaint Case no.620 of 2018 (Pala vs. Akram and others) under Sections 147, 452, 323 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chandpa, District Hathras and also the judgment and order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, court no.2, Hathras.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the evening of 06.05.2018 at about 6.30 P.M. some altercation took place between the petitioners and the complainant wherein the police had challaned both the parties and both the parties got themselves bailed out and regarding same incident the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners wherein no specific role has been assigned to them. No medical report has been filed. In 2006 they had given an application against the complainant and retaliation of that application present false proceedings have been drawn against the petitioners. Hence, summoning order dated 03.06.2019 and revisional order dated 08.11.2021 may be quashed.
It is contended by learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State that in
the summoning order itself there is mentioning of x-ray plate of the complainant. In the statements of the complainant and witnesses it has come that one finger of the complainant was got fractured. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as made in the prayer clause.The present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
From perusal of the record, it is clear that some incident took place on 06.05.2018 regarding which both the parties were challaned under Sections 107/117 Cr.P.C. wherein both the parties got themselves bailed out. As per medical report, no injury has been found on the person of the complainant but in the evidence it has come (as mentioned in the order of the concerned court) that one finger of the complainant was got fractured. There is mentioning of X-ray plate also.
Be that as it may, there is no need of any injury in the case of Section 323 I.P.C. Incident regarding some altercation is admitted by both the parties. Lower court summoned the accused persons under Sections 147, 452, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and as per complaint, specific role has been assigned to both the petitioners and as per complaint, cognizable offence is said to have been made against the petitioners. There is no any ground to set aside the summoning order dated 03.06.2019 and the revsional order dated 08.11.2021.
In my opinion, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 3.2.2022
Asha
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned summoning and revisional orders in the criminal case vide Sections 147, 452, 323 and 506 I.P.C. be quashed.
Whether the alleged lack of medical injury report warrants quashing of the criminal summoning order.
Whether the lower court's conclusion regarding the role of petitioners in the altercation supports the trial proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rizwan And Another
State of U.P. and Another
Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
