Jitendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61433

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 522 of 2025

Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Bahadur,Sanjay Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 11.03.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Complaint Case No. 10094 of 2020 (Jitendra Kumar Vs. Tej Bahadur and Others), Police StationSungarhi, District - Pilibhit, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant against the private opposite parties has been dismissed under Section - 203 Cr.P.C.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that brother of applicant has filed the aforesaid complaint against opposite party no.2 to 5 for offence under Section - 328 I.P.C.. In the complaint, it was alleged that on 02.07.2020, his brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law were present at his house and that they along with his wife have mixed poison in his milk. When the brother of complainant has confronted them, they have admitted that they were giving slow poison to the brother of applicant/complainant since last six months. The brother of applicant was admitted in the hospital. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima facie case was made out

¶9

against opposite party no.2 to 5 but the impugned complaint has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate in an arbitrary manner without considering facts and position of law. It was submitted that the aforesaid complaint was filed by the brother of applicant, namely Prem Shankar but later on he has passed away. The instant application has been preferred by the applicant, who is brother of complainant. Learned counsel has referred contents of complaint and statements of witnesses recorded under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. and submitted that a prima facie case is made out against opposite party no.2 to 5.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C., which reads as under :-

¶13

Section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶14

"Dismissal of complaint- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing."

¶15

Section 204 Cr.P.C.

¶16

"204.Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-

¶17

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

¶18

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."

¶19

Thus, it is clear that as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings with regard to the complaint case after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding exist and he may dismiss the complaint. It is well settled that if a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in

¶20

support of it shows that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further, the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.

¶21

What the Magistrate had to determine at the stage of issue of process was not the correctness of the probability or improbability of individual items of evidence on disputable grounds, but the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case on the assumption that what was stated could be true unless the prosecution allegations were so fantastic that they could not reasonably be held to be true.

¶22

In S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and another , AIR 2001 SC 12960 while examining the scope of section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 has held as under :

¶23

"15. In case of a complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The words 'sufficient ground' used under Section 202 have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.

¶24

16. This Court in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and others, (1993)(3)SCC 753), in para 22, referring to scheme of Sections 200-203 of Cr.P.C. has explained that "The section does not say that a regular trial of adjudging truth or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage, for, such a person can be called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has been issued and he is on trial. Section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials there is in his judgment not sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose (1964 (1)SCR 639) where dismissal of a complaint by the Magistrate at the stage of Section 2092 inquiry was set aside, this Court laid down that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed (p.653) that where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case."

¶25

17. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kongalgi (1976(3) SCC 736) this Court dealing with the scope of inquiry under Section 202 has stated that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (C) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. It is also indicated by way of illustration in which cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process can be quashed on such case being "where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused."

¶26

Considering above-stated position of law, in the instant matter perusal of record shows that opposite party no.2 to 5 are wife, brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the brother of applicant. The main allegation against opposite party no.2 to 5 is that they have administered some poison to the brother of

¶27

applicant through food items and they were doing so since several months. The said version was not supported by any medical evidence. It appears that later on the brother of applicant has passed away on 07.05.2022, whereas incident has taken place on 02.07.2020. The complaint of applicant was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by a reasoned order. After considering material on record, this Court does not find any material illegality or perversity in the impugned order. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of Court or the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice, so as to require any interference by this Court by invoking powers under Section - 482 Cr.P.C.. The application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed .

¶29

Order Date :- 23.4.2025 S Rawat

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hemant Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vibha Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhuwan Chaudhary and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheetal vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another