Writ petition under Article 227 alleging irregularity in summoning accused only for Section 323 IPC. Court found no grounds for interference, dismissed petition, and advised filing amendment application for charges in trial court.
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. - 50
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2672 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ravindra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar,Ramesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
On perusal of order dated 13.4.2022 passed by this Court, it is found that this Court permitted the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit annexing therein statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. within fifteen days, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted today that due to unavoidable reasons, statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. could not be filed along with supplementary affidavit and prayed for deciding the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the basis of evidence and material available on record.
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the informant/complainant against impugned order dated 29.1.2022 passed by learned C.J.M, Bulandshahar in Crl. Case No. 5818 of 2013, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr, wherein accused respondents have been summoned to face trial under Section 323 IPC on protest petition filed by informant, however, process was not issued against them for other charge under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act in which protest petition was also filed.
Factual matrix of the case are that petitioner lodged an F.I.R. with P.S. concerned with regard to incident dated 19.11.2021 on 22.12.2021 at 14:00 hours against Sudhir Sharma (Lekhpal), Tej Singh (Kanoongo), P.K. Jauhari (C.O.) and Jitendra on the basis of order passed by learned Magistrate on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by informant before the court of Magistrate in which allegations are made by the informant that accused persons, who are officials of Consolidation Department, misappropriated Rs. 92,400/- from family members of informant in the name of consolidation operation and even thereafter they demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- which he could not pay to them and for that reason, Lekhpal Sudhir Sharma and P.K. Jauhari three bigha land which was chak out of 15 years old groove of the informant and his family members
and allotted the same to some other persons. The informant had recorded the conversation between accused persons and him regarding payment of money and produced the same before S.D.M. and Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Lekhpal and C.O. became hostile against the informant due to this reason and threatened him many times to withdraw his complaint. On 19.12.2011, Lekhpal and C.O. had sent some person named as Jitendra to the place of informant/petitioner in Bulandshahr where he works of polishing at Power India Furniture Showroom. Jitendra insisted him to give records to him and pay a visit of Consolidation Officer which was not adhered to by the informant. He was again asked to visit Consolidation Office and when he visited the same, accused persons abused him by caste denoting words, insulted him and Jitendra spit on his mouth and stated that they had cleared the account of money and they will clear the account of land on some other date. They also threatened him that he could not do anything against them. They also threatened him with life and assaulted him by kicks and fists.
Police submitted final report after investigation in the matter and concluded that no cogent evidence could be gathered during investigation. Informant has lodged this case on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to save his land and also to save himself from the case lodged against him vide crime no. 4 of 2012, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar.
Petitioner/informant filed a protest petition against final report on 20.5.2013 before the court of C.J.M., which was registered as a complaint and statement of the informant Ravindra under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses namely Banti @ Bindu, Chatrapal, Mahendra Singh, Phool Singh and Ram Kumar, were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C..
Learned magistrate after considering the protest petition and statements of complainant and witnesses, summoned the accused persons under Section 323 IPC only vide order dated 29.1.2022 but refused to issue summon to co-accused P.K. Jauhari on the ground that complicity of P.K. Jauhari (C.O.) in the incident is substantiated. There is no evidence against him regarding his complicity and conspiracy also. However, learned magistrate refused to issue summon against accused persons for charge under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act and 420, 504, 506 IPC on the ground that in statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation against accused persons regarding use of caste specific words. This fact is also narrated in impugned order that Arvinda Singh (I.A.S. Joint Magistrate) conducted an enquiry in the matter where situation
of land was found correct, therefore, the allegation regarding payment of bribery regarding land in question does not sound believable and on that basis the allegation of commission of fraud is also not found prima facie made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this fact is admitted that complainant failed to state this fact specifically that accused persons had abused him by caste specific words in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. but the allegation is corroborated by statement of five witnesses who were examined by learned magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. This fact is also stated in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner which is basis of F.I.R..
Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that on the basis of evidence on record and particularly statement of petitioner and witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the learned magistrate may be directed to summon respondent nos. 4 to 7 who are summoned as accused in impugned order, under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act along with Sections 323 Cr.P.C. in which they have been summoned only.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and same has been passed after considering the evidence on record in logical and proper manner and for that reason, petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be dismissed.
This is admitted fact that an F.I.R. has been lodged against petitioner at the instance of officials of Consolidation Department under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 and 427 IPC vide crime no. 4 of 2012 which is mentioned in final report also.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not file statement of petitioner/complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, despite directions of this Court. Summoning order is revisable before Court of Sessions as well as before Hon'ble High Court under sections 397 and 401 IPC. No grounds of interference in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are found after considering the statements of informant as well as other witnesses and also perusal of material on record, the same is liable to be dismissed with observation that it is open to the petitioner to move an application for amendment of charge after recording of evidence before the trial court and same may be considered and decided by learned court below in accordance with law.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed in the light of above observations.
Order Date :- 24.1.2023 A.P. Pandey
Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the High Court Magistrate's decision to summon the accused only for Section 323 IPC and not for other charges including SC/ST Act.
Whether the failure to file the Section 200 Cr.P.C. statement prevents the High Court from exercising revisional powers under Article 227.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Ravindra Singh
State Of U.P.
6 Others
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
