Laxman v. Pavan and others) under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149287 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12296 of 2024 Applicant :- Pavan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- B.N.Singh,G.A.,Manish Kumar Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
9. There may be cross version of one occurrence and it is settled law that the cross version may be tried by the same Court and be decided simultaneously. At the present stage the Court is considering the impugned order, passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C., as well as that in terms of law laid down in cases of Lalankumar Singh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1383 and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024:INSC:626;2024 SCC Online SC 2248, since the impugned order has assigned reasons that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicants and reasons are based on material available on record, therefore no case to invoke inherent jurisdiction is made out. It is also well settled that at this stage Court cannot conduct a mini trial. 10. I have carefully considered the impugned order as well as statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. A minor contradiction could not be considered to be fatal at the stage of summoning. The learned Trial Court has considered the material available as well as law in regard to issue summons and has assigned reasons to summon 4 accused persons, though the allegations were made against others also, mainly on ground that there were specific allegations against said proposed accused. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do no find any reason to invoke inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, this application is rejected, however, it is observed the applicants will appear before the concerned Court within a short period and file bail applications, which may be considered taking note of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2021 10 SCC 773.
Arguments
1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Mainsh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.p.C. has been filed on behalf of applicants against impugned summoning order dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No. 91 of 2023 (Heeru @ Laxman Versus Pavan and others) under Sections 324, 392, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Madhaugarh, District- Jalaun. 3. There are cross version to an occurrence, took place on 24.05.2023. It is not under dispute that the applicants have lodged a prompt FIR on 26.05.2023 wherein after investigation a charge-sheet was filed on 17.06.2023, but copy of same is not on record. 4. It is also not under dispute that, complainant in present case has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 05.07.2023 i.e. after charge-sheet was filed though complainant's side were summoned upon the charge-sheet later on 09.02.2024. The said application was supported by a medical injury report of one injured person from the complainant's side, dated 25.05.2023 i.e. on the date of occurrence. 5. Learned counsel for applicants submits that present proceedings are counter blast and has been initiated only to prepare a defence. The complainant has not tried to lodge a prompt FIR and approached the learned Magistrate only after the charge- sheet was filed against the complainant's side. Learned counsel also submits that there are material contradictions in statements of complainants and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. about the manner in which the injured was taken to hospital. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that injury was examined on the day of occurrence. The police has not lodged any FIR on the complainant's version whereas, they have lodged a prompt FIR on cross version. The learned Trial Court has assigned reasons that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicants, and he refers following paragraph of the impugned order:- पववकक तथथ गसडम नक एकरथय हरकर पथथर पर हमलथ कर पदयथ, " उपररक सस सपष हह पक पररवथदम नक कथन पकयथ हह पक पदनथनक 25.05.2023 पथथर कर दकखतक हम मथन- बहन कक भदम- अवधकश, पवन, पहर व जथनघ आपद मम गमभमर चरटम आयम। गथनव कक पधथन रथघवकनद धसनह, कक अनय लरगय नक उनकय ललकथरथ व बचथनक कर ददडक, कक चहन एवन जकब मम पडक 1150/- चलक गयक। पररवथदम कक पररवथद कथथनक कथ समथरन परमपकत सथकम पम० डबलल०-1 डबलल०-2 ससथथपपत पवधध कक आलरक मम हसतगत पकरण कक तथयय व पररससथपतयय कक सममकथ सक बजक मससलजमथन भदम गथधलयथन दकनक लगक। उसकक दथरथ गथलम दकनक सक मनथ पकयथ तर धजससक उसकक धसर, हथथ, वमर धसनह व उसकक पररवथर व गथनव तब उक मससलजमथन पथथर कक गलक मम पडम सरनक रपयक जबरन छमनकर लक गयक तथथ जथन सक मथरनक कक धमकक दकतक हहए शम वमर धसनह पम० शम रथघवकनद धसनह दथरथ भम अपनक बयथन मम पकयथ गयथ हह। कर समय रथपत 8.00 इस पकथर इस सतर पर पररवथद कथथनक व समथरन मम पसतसत सथकय कक आधथर पर नयथयथलय कक मत मम मथत पवपकमगण शम पवन, पवरद पथम दषयथ धथरथ- 324,392,504,506 भथ० दन० सन० कथ अपरथध गपठत हरनथ पथयथ जथतथ हह। अतत उक मथमलक मम मथत पवपकमगण शम पवन, शममतम गसडम दकवम व शम अवधकश कर धथरथ- 324,392,504,506 भथ० शम पववकक, दन० सन० कक अपरथध मम तलब पकयक जथनक कथ पयथरप आधथर हह।" शममतम गसडम दकवम व शम अवधकश कक शम पववकक, 7. I have considered the above submissions and also took note of above referred undisputed facts that there is a delay on behalf of the complainant to approach the learned Magistrate, however, considering that the injury report was of on the day on which alleged occurrence took place which could not be disputed at this stage, since it is of the Government Hospital and the injured has received 2 lacerated wounds also. 8. Delay may not be of much consideration presence of the applicants at the place of occurrence could not be disputed since they have already lodge an FIR against the complainant's side for the same occurrence.
Decision
12. With aforesaid observations, the present application finally stands disposed of. Order Date :- 12.9.2024/Saurabh