Dismissed

Sangeeta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2022A227/513/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Article 227 writ petition challenged a High Court revisional court's dismissal of a revision regarding a summoning order. The petitioner alleged the Magistrate erred by not summoning for Sections 354 and 452 IPC. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no sufficient ground to interfere with the revisional order.

What did the court decide?

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

Sangeeta Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 513 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sangeeta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2021. By the impugned order the revisional court has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the summoning order dated 21.1.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1008 of 2020 (Sangeeta Vs. Raj Singh and others), P.S. Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar under section 323 and 506 IPC.

¶7

In brief the facts are that O.P. N. 2 filed a complaint before the Magistrate alleging therein that there is civil dispute between the applicant and O.P. Nos. 2 to 6. On 21.9.2020 at about 4:00 P.M. when the petitioner went to take straw for animals the accused persons named in the complaint entered there, abused the petitioner saying to take back the civil case. When the petitioner denied for the same all the accused persons started assaulting her. Sushil and Praveen tried to outrage her modesty, torn her clothes. On shouting of the petitioner the witnesses reached at the place and accused persons ran away threatening with death. Complainant examined herself under section 200 Cr.P.C. and produced two witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. She also filed medico legal report in support. Learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 21.1.2021 observed that from the material on record a case under section 323 and 506 IPC is made out against the accused persons and summoned them accordingly. As the Magistrate has not summoned the accused persons for the offence under section 452 and 354 Kha IPC the complainant aggrieved with it filed a criminal revision which has been dismissed.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that complainant in her statement has fully corroborated the allegation of the FIR which also discloses the offence under section 354 Kha and 452 IPC. The witnesses produced by her

¶9

has also corroborated the statement of the complainant but the learned Magistrate without giving any reason has recorded the finding that a prima facie case for the offence under section 323 and 506 IPC is made out. The learned Magistrate has failed to consider the relevant evidence and failed to exercise the jurisdiction without any cogent reason. The learned revisional court has also failed to appreciate it and has dismissed the revision. Both the orders are arbitrary and perverse and hence not sustainable.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. contended that on the basis of evidence finding a prima facie case under section 323 and 506 IPC the learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

¶11

The learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence on record has recorded the finding that a prima facie case under section 323 and 506 IPC is made out and has passed the summoning order accordingly. It is a complaint case and warrant trial. The complainant has an opportunity to produce her evidence under section 244 Cr.P.C. and at the time of framing of charge she may pray before the Magistrate to frame charges under the relevant sections which is made out from the evidence on record. Due to aforesaid reason there appears no sufficient ground to interfere in the impugned orders.

¶12

The petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is hereby dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 2.3.2022 Masarrat

¶14

Digitally signed by MASARRAT HUSAIN Date: 2022.03.02 15:34:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sangeeta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Shashank Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Alisher and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarikhat @ Shavej Vs State of U.P.

Km. Aparna Kaushik Vs State of U.P and Another

Rajendra Nath Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another