High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149187 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12248 of 2024 Applicant :- Razi Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. The applicant before this Court is complainant. He has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was considered as a complaint and thereafter the statements were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate by an order dated 25.07.2022 has summoned the opposite party No.2 for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. The order in its entirety is reproduced hereinafter :- "ददिनननांक -25.07.2022 पतनवलली आदिदेश हदेततु पदेश हहई। पररिवनदिली कदे दवदनन अधधिवकन उपससस्थित हहए पररिवनदिली कदे दवदनन अधधिवकन कको सतुनन गयन। पररिवनदि पत सनांकदेप मम इस प्रकनरि हहै दक दवपकलीगण नदे पररिवनदिली सदे अपनली …… . आरिनजली नम्बरि-290 कको बहैननमन करिनदे कदे धलए कहन। बहैननमन लदेनदे सदे पपूवर एडवननांस कदे ततौरि परि ददिननक 23.05.2016 कको पररिवनदिली नदे कनशली गकोमतली सनांयतुक गनमलीण बबक , शनखन नदिवननां …… मऊ कदे अपनदे खनतन सनांख्यन -515052010007079 सदे रिदेयनज अहमदि कदे खनतन सख्यन - रुपयदे सस्थिनननन्तररित दकयन तस्थिन ददिनननांक 515052010011134 मम 10,00,000/- 13.06.2016 कको पतुन अपनदे खनतदे सदे 250,000/- रूपयदे दवपकली रिदेयनज अहमदि कदे खनतदे मम , बबक सस्थिनननतररित दकयन परिन्ततु दवपकलीगण नदे पररिवनदिली कको जमलीन कन बहैननमन नहहीं दकयन कधस्थित जमलीन कन अधधिक मपूल्य लदेकरि दकसली अन्य कको बदेचनन चनहतदे हब। दवपकलीगण नदे पररिवनदिली कदे सनस्थि धिकोखन एव दवश्वनसघनत दकयन हहै। पहैसन वनपस मनगनदे परि दवपकली पररिवनदिली कको जनन सदे मनरिनदे ककी नमककी दिदे रिहदे हब। पररिवनदि पत, दिनांड प्रदक्रियन सदहतन ककी धिनरिन 200 कदे तहत पररिवनदिली कदे सशपस्थि व्यनन व दिनांड प्रदक्रियन सनांदहतन ककी धिनरिन 202 कदे अनांतगरत अन्य दिको जननांच सनदकययों कमशशः जदहरुदलीन व फररियनदि अहमदि कदे सनक्ष्ययों व अदभिलदेख परि उपलब्धि अन्य दिसतनवदेजयों कन अवलकोकन दकयन। अवलकोकन सदे रिदेयनज अहमदि व शम्शनदि अहमदि कदे दवरूद्ध भिनरितलीय दिनांड सनांदहतन ककी धिनरिन 506 कदे अतगरत कनयरवनहली दकयदे जननदे कन आधिनरि पयनरप्त प्रतलीत हकोतन हहै। आदिदेश दवपकलीगण/अदभियतुकगण 1. रिदेयनज अहमदि, 2. शमशनदि अहमदि दिकोनयों, दनवनसली गनम -नदिवन सरिनय, स्थिननन-घकोसली, जनपदि-मऊ, कको भिनरितलीय दिनांड सनांदहतन ककी धिनरिन 506 कदे तहत दवचनरिण हनांततु तलब दकयन जनतन हहै। पररिवनदिली सनदकययों ककी सपूचली कदे सनस्थि पररिवनदि पत ककी एक प्रदत दिनधखल करि एव आदिदेदशकन शतुल्क अदिन करि आवश्यक पहैरिवली 10 ददिवस कदे अनांदिरि करिम। पहैरिवली उपरिननांत अदभियतुक ककी उपससस्थिदत हदेततु समन जनरिली दकयन। पतनवलली वनसतदे उपससस्थिदत ददिननक 16.03.2022 कन पदेश हको।" Applicant/complainant thereafter filed a revision petition challenging the above order mainly on ground that statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were not considered, wherein there was a specific allegation of criminal breach of trust that despite money was paid towards an unregistered agreement of sale, by online transaction but dishonestly it was not executed by proposed accused persons. The relevant part of memo of revision is reproduced hereinafter :- "1-यह दक मनननलीय न्यनदयक मधजसटट देट कन आदिदेश ददिनननांक 25.07.2022 दवधधि दवरूद्ध व न्यनय सनांगत नहहीं हहै, क्ययोंदक मनननलीय न्यनयनलय नदे आदिदेश पनररित करितदे समय न्यनदयक मससतष्क कन प्रयकोग नहली दकयन जननन प्रतलीत हको रिहन हहै। 2-यह दक 200 सली.आरि.पली.सली. व 202 सली.आरि.पली.सली. कदे बयनननत तस्थिन दिनधखल प्रपतयों सदे यह बहहत हली सपष्ट रूप सदे पतौ लदेनदे वनलली बनत अनांदकत हहै। 3-यह दक प्रनस्थिर /दनगरिननलीकतनर नदे अपनदे खनतन सनां० 515052010007079 कनशली गकोमतली सनांयतुक गनमलीण बबक शनखन नदिवन सरिनय मऊ कदे खनतन सदे रिदेयनज अहमदि कको कनशली गकोमतली सनांयतुक गनमलीण बबक गनमलीण खनतन सनां 0 51505201001134 मम मतुव० 10,00000 (दिसहै लनख रू०) व 2, 50,000 रु० (दिको लनख पचनस हजनरि रू०) कतु ल 1250,000 रू० (बनरिह लनख पचनस हजनरि) सस्थिनननन्तररित दकयन हहै धजसकन अदभिलदेखलीय व मतौधखक सनक्ष्य दिकोनको प्रपतयों परि मतौजपूदि हहै धजसकको मनननलीय न्यनयनलय नदे सम्मनदनत आदिदेश पनररित करितदे समय लदेस मनत भिली गतौरि नहहीं दकयन हहै। 4-यह दक 200 सली.आरि.पली.सली. व 202 सली.आरि.पली.सली. कदे बयनननत तस्थिन अदभिलदेखलीय सनक्ष्य कदे अनतुसनरि धिनरिन 406 आई.पली.सली. कन भिली अपरिनधि सपष्ट रूप सदे ससृधजत हकोतन हहै। धजस परि मनननलीय न्यनयनलय नदे दवचनरि नहहीं दकयन हहै , इसधलए मनननलीय न्यनयनलय कन आदिदेश ददिनननांदकत 25.07.2022 रूपनन्तररित हकोनन न्यनयदहत मम आवश्यक हकोगन।" The Revisional Court by order dated 20.01.2024 has rejected the said revision petition and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter :-
Legal Reasoning
"10. This Revisional Court has perused the statement of complainant Razi Ahmad under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal and that of witnesses Zahiruddin Ahmad and Fariyad Ahmad under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and perused the other record. At this stage, only prima- facie case is to be seen in the light of evidence available on record. From the perusal of statement of complainant Razi Ahmad under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal and that of witnesses Zahiruddin Ahmad and Fariyad Ahmad under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and documents available on record, the learned Magistrate has found that prima-facie offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the proposed accused persons is made out. Thus, it transpires that after perusing and scrutinizing the entire records, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order after applying its judicial mind. Civil suit is stated to be pending in between the parties. 11. In the backdrop of above discussion and the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in above case laws, I find that Revisional Court has limited power in interfering with the order challenged U/s. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It can not be said that the impugned order is based on no material. The impugned order is not perverse. The learned Court below has not committed any illegality, impropriety, irregularity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. Therefore, this revision is liable to be dismissed."
Legal Reasoning
Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant submits that above referred finding returned by Revisional Court that learned Magistrate has passed the impugned summoning order after careful perusal of statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are perverse, since the statements has not been recorded even in brief in impugned order. Learned counsel refers statement of complainant as recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. For reference, the same is reproduced hereinafter :- "पररिवनदिली कन दिण्ड प्रदक्रियन सनांदहतन ककी धिनरिन 200 कदे अनांतगरत शपस्थि पत बयननशः- ननम- रिजली अहमदि दपतन सव० अलली अहमदि उम्र 61 वरर व्यवसनय- अध्यनपक दनवनसली गनम- हमलीदिपतुरि स्थिननन- घकोसली धजलन- मऊ। 06-06-2022: रिदेयनज व शमशनदि मदेरिदे सगदे मनमन हहै। इनककी जमलीन नदिवन सरिनय मम स्थिली धजसकको यदे बदेचनन चनहतदे स्थिदे। सनढदे बनरिह लनख (1250000/-) मम जमलीन बदेचनन तय हको गयन। जमलीन मतुझदे दिदेनदे कदे धलए तय हहआ। कनशली गकोमतली सनांयतुक गनमलीण बबक नदिवन सरिनय मम रिदेयनज व मदेरिन भिली खनतन स्थिन। महैनदे अपनदे खनतदे सदे ददिनननांक 23-05-2016 कको दिस लनख रुप्यन उस जमलीन कदे क्रिय कदे धलए रिदेयनज कदे खनतदे मम अनांतरिण दकयन तस्थिन ददिनननांक 13-06-2016 कको दिको लनख पचनस हजनरि रूपयन अनांतरिण दकयन। पहैसन लदेनदे कदे बनदि जमलीन नहहीं धलखदे। जब महै पहैसन लदेनदे यन जमलीन धखननदे कदे धलए गयन तको रिदेयनज जनन सदे मनरिनदे ककी धिमककी ददिए। स्थिननदे परि दशकनयत दकए लदेदकन ककोई कनयरवनहली नहहीं हहयली।" I have considered the above submissions and finds that there is merit in above arguments as learned Magistrate has not considered about the online transaction as well as no reason has been assigned in impugned order that why offences of criminal breach of trust is not made out and only offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is made out. The Revisional Court has also not considered the specific grounds raised in memo of revision and as referred above a perverse finding is being recorded in regard to appreciation of statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. by the concerned Magistrate. In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 20.02.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.57 of 2023 (Razi Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others) is set aside. However, considering that this order is passed without issuing notice to opposite party Nos.2 and 3 (accused), therefore, matter is remitted back to Revisional Court to pass fresh order after hearing the rival parties within three months. Revisional Court will also take note of Lalankumar Singh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 as well as ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., as the case may be. Accordingly, application is disposed of with aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 12.9.2024 P. Pandey