Jashodanand v. Pujari and others), whereby they have been summoned to face trial for offences u
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121752 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5367 of 2024 Applicant :- Pujari And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Tripathi,Maruti Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Maruti Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for applicants and perused the record. 2. Applicants before this Court are ten in numbers. They are aggrieved by impugned order dated 21.12.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar in Complaint Case No. 538 of 2021 (Jashodanand vs. Pujari and others), whereby they have been summoned to face trial for offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 379 IPC.
Legal Reasoning
9. It is well settled that to pass a summoning order is a serious affair and for that a well reasoned order has to be passed, however, it appears that said exercise has not been undertaken in the present case, therefore, impugned summoning order in its present form is not sustainable. 10. In view of above, application is allowed in part. Impugned summoning order dated 21.12.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar in Complaint Case No. 538 of 2021 (Jashodanand vs. Pujari and others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 379 IPC, is hereby set aside. 11. Since this order is passed without even issuing notice to Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., complainant, therefore, matter is remitted back to Trial Court concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law taking note of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383. Order Date :- 30.7.2024 AK
Arguments
3. Learned counsel for applicants submits that present proceedings are malicious in nature. Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., complainant, is habitual to file multiple criminal proceedings against applicants. In this regard, he refers details mentioned in few paragraphs of application, though they are of prior in time, i.e., of the years 2013 and 2014. 4. Learned counsel for applicants refers that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were also initiated in the year 2014, however, orders passed thereon are not on record and he claimed that land in question belongs to applicants and they have cultivated and harvested it also, though not supported by any documents. 5. Learned counsel also refers statements of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses recorded under Sections 202 Cr.P.C. that there are sweeping allegations against applicants and that Trial Court has not correctly appreciated or considered statement of complainant wherein allegation of assault is alleged only on three applicants, namely, Pohari, Pujari and Arvind alias Paltu. For reference said statement of complainant is reproduced hereinafter: "ममै जशशोददाननंद पपुत्र मपुनन्नीलदाल सदा० जशोरवदा थदानदा खलन्नीलदाबदाद जनपद सनं०क०न० सशपथ यह बयदान करतदा हह आसपदास पपुजदारन्नी , पपौहरन्नी सपुभदावतन्नी , ओमसतन्नी , सत्यधदामदा हूँ कक कदनदानंक , अरकवन्द उरर पल्टट , पजेमपटजदा 18/10/2020 , मशोतन्नीचन्द 9 बजजे कजे , , अमरनदाथ ससनंह , रट लमतन्नी , सन्जट कमलकर मजेरजे खजेत कशो कदाटनजे लगजे। कशो सपुबह खजेत मजे ममैनजे धदान ककी रशोपनन्नी ककयदा थदा। जब मपुझजे पतदा चलदा तशो ममै रशोकनजे गयदा तशो यजे लशोग , पटजदारन्नी एवनं अरकवन्द उरर पल्टट मपुझजे दपौडदा सलए। ममै नदालजे कजे पदास कगर गयदा तशो पपौहदारन्नी नजे मपुझजे कई लदाठन्नी मदारदा। लदाठन्नी सजे पन्नीटजे जदानजे पर मपुझजे बहहत चशोट आयन्नी करर भन्नी मम ककसन्नी तरह जदान बचदाकर भदागदा । गदाहूँव वदालजे आए तशो मजेरन्नी जदान बचन्नी। पन्नीटतजे समय इन लशोगशो नजे मपुझजे गन्दन्नी गन्दन्नी गदासलयदानं कदयदा। जब तक ममै बचनजे ककी कशोकशश मम लगदा रहतदा यजे लशोग पटरन्नी धदान ककी रसल कदाटकर टट दालन्नी मम भरकर उठदा लजे गए। ममनजे पपुसलस मम कशकदायत ककयदा तशो पपुसलस नजे मपुकदमदा दजर नहहीं ककयदा कजे वल पपुजदारन्नी एवनं पपौहदारन्नी पर 107 Cr.P.C चलदायदा गयदा। इसकजे अलदावदा कशोई कदायरवदाहन्नी नहन्नी हहई तशो मम न्यदायदालय ककी शरण मम आयदा।" 6. Learned counsel also refers the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that all applicants have been alleged to have carrying weapons. In aforesaid factual background, learned counsel further submits that applicants have been summoned under Section 323 IPC also but no injury report was placed on record. Even Police who reached at place of occurrence has only initiated proceedings under Sections 107, 116, 151 Cr.P.C. that at that stage it was not even considered to be a case of lodging NCR or FIR. 7. I have considered the above submissions in the light of material on record. I have also carefully perused impugned summoning order and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: "पत्रदावलन्नी कजे अवलशोकन सजे स्पष्ट हमै कक पररवदादन्नी ददारदा अपनजे बयदान अनंतगरत धदारदा 200 दनंड पकक्रियदा सनंकहतदा मम यह कथन ककयदा गयदा हमै कक कदनदानंक 18.10.2020 कशो सपुबह नपौ बजजे कजे आसपदास पपुजदारन्नी , पपौहदारन्नी, अरकवन्द उरर पल्टट , मशोतन्नीचन्द, रट लमतन्नी, अमरनदाथ, सपुभदावतन्नी, ओमसतन्नी, सत्यधदामदा, सन्जट व पजेमपटजदा कमलकर मजेरजे खजेत कशो कदाटनजे लगजे। खजेत मम ममनजे धदान ककी रशोपनन्नी ककयदा थदा। जब मपुझजे पतदा चलदा तशो मम रशोकनजे गयदा तशो यजे लशोग मपुझजे दपौडदा सलए। मम नदालजे कजे पदास कगर गयदा तशो पपौहदारन्नी , पपुजदारन्नी, एवनं अरकवन्द उरर पल्टट नजे मपुझजे कई लदाठन्नी मदारदा। लदाठन्नी सजे पन्नीटजे जदानजे पर मपुझजे बहहत चशोट आयन्नी, करर भन्नी मम ककसन्नी तरह जदान बचदाकर भदागदा। गदानंव वदालजे आए तशो मजेरन्नी जदान बचन्नी। पन्नीटतजे समय इन लशोगगों नजे मपुझजे गदासलयदाहूँ कदयदा थदा। जब तक मम बचनजे ककी कशोकशश मम लगदा रहतदा यजे लशोग पटरन्नी धदान ककी रसल कदाटकर टट दालन्नी मम भरकर उठदा लजे गए। ममनजे पपुसलस मम कशकदायत ककयदा तशो पपुसलस नजे मपुकदमदा दजर नहहीं ककयदा। कजे वल पपुजदारन्नी एवनं पपौहदारन्नी पर 107 Crpc चलदायदा गयदा। इसकजे अलदावदा कशोई कदायरवदाहन्नी नहहीं हहई तशो मम न्यदायदालय ककी शरण मम आयदा। अततः पररवदादन्नी तथदा गवदाहगों कजे बयदान तथदा उपलब्ध पलजेखन्नीय सदाक्ष्य कजे आधदार पर कवपकन्नीगण पपुजदारन्नी, पपौहदारन्नी, अरकवन्द उरर पल्टट , मशोतन्नीचन्द, रट लमतन्नी, अमरनदाथ, सपुभदावतन्नी, ओमसतन्नी, सत्यधदामदा, पजेमपटजदा व ... हमै तथदा कवपकन्नीगण कजे कवरूद्ध अकग्रिम कदायरवदाहन्नी ककयजे जदानजे कदा पयदारप्त आधदार हमै।" 8. I find substance in arguments of learned counsel for applicants at this stage that only on ground that number of assailants were more than five, without appreciating that there are sweeping allegations which are general in nature, all applicants including females were summoned.