Dismissed

Ram Kumar @ Ram Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2024/2116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a summoning order passed in a complaint case under Sections 354 and 506 IPC, alleging false implication due to a property dispute. The court found the complainant's Section 200 statement corroborated by the Section 202 witness statement and held no ground for quashing was made out at this stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Kumar @ Ram Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69397

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2116 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Kumar @ Ram Kumar Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pravin Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Bharat Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Shivam Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Shri Pravin Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 14.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, District Raebareli in compliant case no.9412 of 2020, under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C. at District Raebareli as well as entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.9412 of 2020 pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate I, District Raebareli.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the present applicant with the allegation that he committed rape upon her, which came to be treated as a complaint case by the learned Magistrate. His further submission is that the statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. whereas the statement of witness, Pyare Miyan was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

¶9

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on the basis of the aforesaid statements, the impugned order dated 14.03.2022 was passed by the learned trial Court whereby the applicant was directed to be summoned to face

¶10

trial for offence under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C.

¶11

His next submission is that in fact the applicant is brother-in-law (Jeth) of the victim with whom there are some property dispute and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, the impugned order being palpably illegal deserves to be set aside.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer by submitting that the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order dated 14.03.2022, has perused the entire record. The learned trial Court after perusal of statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as statement of his witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., has come to the conclusion that there are sufÏcient ground to summon applicant to face trial under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C. They further submitted that at the stage of summoning the accused persons, it is prima facie satisfaction of learned court below which should be reflected from the impugned order, no detailed enquiry at the stage of any detailed order is required to be passed by learned court below.

¶13

They controvert the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial. At this initial stage, the fact of innocence of the applicant can also not be determined.

¶14

Their next submission is that the sufÏciency of the material and the test to be applied at the stage of issue of process has been considered in the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2012) 11 SCC 465 , wherein it has been reiterated that the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufÏcient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufÏcient to prove and establish the guilt".

¶15

On the basis of the aforesaid, they submit that no interference with the impugned summoning order and proceedings is warranted at this stage and, therefore, the instant application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the records, it transpires that the allegations in the complaint have been found to be duly corroborated by the statement made on oath by the complainant during the course of examination under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also the statement of witness recorded during inquiry made by the learned Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. The impugned order has been passed referring the aforesaid statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and only thereafter, impugned summoning order has been passed. Therefore, at this initial stage, no ground for quashing the impugned summoning order and the proceedings of aforesaid case is made out.

¶17

The applicant will have an opportunity at the appropriate stage to move an application for discharge taking therein all the pleas factual and legal which may be available to him, in accordance with law.

¶18

Accordingly, the prayer of quashing the impugned order as well as summoning order and proceedings emanating therefrom is hereby refused.

¶19

However, it is provided that if the applicant applies for grant of bail, the court concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU /SC /1024 /2021.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid observations, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of .

¶21

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 Mahesh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kumar @ Ram Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Kumar @ Ram Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aadarsh Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Brijesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Awadhesh Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Reeta Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Akhilesh Singh Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another