Smt. Anita Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others

Criminal Revision No.3 of 2024, Smt. Anita Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, as well as the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Purwa, Unnao in Complaint Case No.1357 of 2022 Smt. Anita Singh Vs. Virendra and others.

2. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that on 16.05.2021 at about 10 AM, husband of the applicant had gone to pay Rs.1,75,000/- to the shop keeper. As soon as he reached to the outskirts of the village, opposite parties no.2 to 5 attacked her husband with intention to kill and Rs.1,75,000/- was looted. Thereafter, applicant took her husband to the Community Health Center, Sumerpur, where the doctor referred him to the District Hospital, Unnao. Thereafter, he was referred to Hilite Hospital, Kanpur. The medical examination of the husband of the applicant was conducted at Kanpur. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged at Case Crime No.263 of 2021, under Sections 395 and 397 IPC, Police Station Bihar, District Unnao, in which final report was submitted. The applicant thereafter filed protest petition and the statements of the applicant as well as her husband Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. On 19.01.2023, applicant filed an application with a prayer that the doctor who proved the medical report, may also be summoned under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The said application was rejected by the trial court 2 A482 No. 6536 of 2024 vide order dated 09.11.2023. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a revision, which too was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated

17.05.2024. Hence the present application has been filed with the aforesaid prayers.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the doctor is required to be examined before summoning the accused because he can only prove the medical report. He further submits that doctor’s report is already filed along with the complaint, therefore, it is necessary that he should come and state the fact that whether he conducted the medical examination or not. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgement of this Court rendered in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.20280 of 2013, Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on 20.02.2024.

4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that statements of the applicant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as the medical report filed by the applicant is sufficient to apply the mind and thereafter the trial court may either summon or reject the application under Section 203 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that no illegality has been pointed out by the counsel for the applicant in the matter and no prejudice is going to be caused to her. Once the medical report is available on record, the trial court may look into it and after considering the medical report as well as other material on record it can proceed in accordance with law.

5. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is a case where it is admitted by the counsel for the applicant that the medical report is already filed before the trial court. Once the medical report is filed before the trial court, then this is a document which has to be seen by the trial court. There is no reason as to why the doctor will come at this stage and prove the medical report. Therefore, requirement of the doctor under Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. is not required at this stage. For ready reference, Section 202 Cr.P.C. is quoted below:- “202. Postponement of issue of process.--(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his 3 A482 No. 6536 of 2024 jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, -- (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present ( if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200. (2) In any inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section(1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.”

7. Section 204 Cr.P.C. provides that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the case appears to be a summon case, he shall issue summons for the attendance of the accused, or in 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.

8. In the present case, statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have to be seen by the trial court. The Magistrate while going through the record and the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., certainly it is imperative upon him to go through the other evidence available on record and the medical report, which is already there on record, therefore, there is no need to call upon the doctor at this stage.

9. The judgement cited by the counsel for the applicant viz Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and other (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of the present case because in the aforesaid case, the accused had approached this Court, whereas in the present case, the complainant has approached this Court. The applicant, who is the complainant, has already placed on record the relevant material i.e. her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., 4 A482 No. 6536 of 2024 and the medical report, therefore, the said judgement will not be applicable in this case.

10. The trial court while rejecting the application has not committed any error, therefore, the application filed by the applicant was rightly rejected.

11. Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected. November 7, 2025 Rao/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.)

Criminal Revision No.3 of 2024, Smt. Anita Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, as well as the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Purwa, Unnao in Complaint Case No.1357 of 2022 Smt. Anita Singh Vs. Virendra and others.

2. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that on 16.05.2021 at about 10 AM, husband of the applicant had gone to pay Rs.1,75,000/- to the shop keeper. As soon as he reached to the outskirts of the village, opposite parties no.2 to 5 attacked her husband with intention to kill and Rs.1,75,000/- was looted. Thereafter, applicant took her husband to the Community Health Center, Sumerpur, where the doctor referred him to the District Hospital, Unnao. Thereafter, he was referred to Hilite Hospital, Kanpur. The medical examination of the husband of the applicant was conducted at Kanpur. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged at Case Crime No.263 of 2021, under Sections 395 and 397 IPC, Police Station Bihar, District Unnao, in which final report was submitted. The applicant thereafter filed protest petition and the statements of the applicant as well as her husband Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. On 19.01.2023, applicant filed an application with a prayer that the doctor who proved the medical report, may also be summoned under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The said application was rejected by the trial court 2 A482 No. 6536 of 2024 vide order dated 09.11.2023. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a revision, which too was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated

17.05.2024. Hence the present application has been filed with the aforesaid prayers.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the doctor is required to be examined before summoning the accused because he can only prove the medical report. He further submits that doctor’s report is already filed along with the complaint, therefore, it is necessary that he should come and state the fact that whether he conducted the medical examination or not. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgement of this Court rendered in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.20280 of 2013, Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on 20.02.2024.

4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that statements of the applicant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as the medical report filed by the applicant is sufficient to apply the mind and thereafter the trial court may either summon or reject the application under Section 203 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that no illegality has been pointed out by the counsel for the applicant in the matter and no prejudice is going to be caused to her. Once the medical report is available on record, the trial court may look into it and after considering the medical report as well as other material on record it can proceed in accordance with law.

5. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is a case where it is admitted by the counsel for the applicant that the medical report is already filed before the trial court. Once the medical report is filed before the trial court, then this is a document which has to be seen by the trial court. There is no reason as to why the doctor will come at this stage and prove the medical report. Therefore, requirement of the doctor under Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. is not required at this stage. For ready reference, Section 202 Cr.P.C. is quoted below:- “202. Postponement of issue of process.--(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his 3 A482 No. 6536 of 2024 jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, -- (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present ( if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200. (2) In any inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section(1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.”

7. Section 204 Cr.P.C. provides that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the case appears to be a summon case, he shall issue summons for the attendance of the accused, or in 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.

8. In the present case, statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have to be seen by the trial court. The Magistrate while going through the record and the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., certainly it is imperative upon him to go through the other evidence available on record and the medical report, which is already there on record, therefore, there is no need to call upon the doctor at this stage.

9. The judgement cited by the counsel for the applicant viz Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and other (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of the present case because in the aforesaid case, the accused had approached this Court, whereas in the present case, the complainant has approached this Court. The applicant, who is the complainant, has already placed on record the relevant material i.e. her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., 4 A482 No. 6536 of 2024 and the medical report, therefore, the said judgement will not be applicable in this case.

10. The trial court while rejecting the application has not committed any error, therefore, the application filed by the applicant was rightly rejected.

11. Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected. November 7, 2025 Rao/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.)