Jai Singh v. Rajiv Kumar & Ors) under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:147891 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28543 of 2024 Applicant :- Munesh Kumar And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajit Kumar Kushwaha,Ashutosh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.K.Singh, learned A.G.A. 2. By means of this application, applicants have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 8.4.2024 and the impugned order rejecting Criminal Revision No.160 of 2024 dated 30.7.2024 as well as entire proceedings arising out of Criminal Complaint No.3415 of 2024 (Jai Singh Vs. Rajiv Kumar & Ors) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Kanth Moradabad, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Moradabad. 3. Applicants before this Court are facing trial under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C. vide impugned order dated 8.4.2024 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants side has lodged a prompt NCR in regard to the occurrence took place on 21.1.2024 wherein after permission of learned Magistrate F.I.R. was lodged that persons from applicants side have received injuries also. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that as a counterblast, complainant submitted a criminal complaint at a later stage and learned Magistrate summoned the applicants without appreciating that there are contradictions in the statement of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. So far as allegations of assault is concerned, no injury report is placed on record. 6. In order to appreciate above submissions, I have considered the impugned order, relevant part of which is reproduced hereinafter: "ससुनना तथना पतनावलली कना अवललोकन ककयना। पतनावलली कके अवललोकन सके कवकदित हहै कक पररिवनादिली नके कवपकलीगण परि घरि मम घसुसकरि सनामनान तलोड़नके, मनारिपलीट करिनके, गनालली गललौज करिनके, जनान सके मनारिनके कक धमकक दिकेनके कना कथन ककयना हहै। इस सम्बन्ध मम पररिवनादिली दनारिना पतनावलली कना स्वययं कलो अन्तगरत धनारिना - 200 दियं०प्र०सयं० एवयं सनाकली ध्यनान ससयंह एवयं कवजकेन्द ससयंह कलो अन्तगरत धनारिना 202 दियं०प्र०सयं० मम परिलीककत करिनायना हहै। पररिवनादिली दनारिना पतनावलली मम पसुसलस कलो 112 नम्बरि परि कनाल करिनके कके सयंबयंध मम कनाल कडिटकेल कक छनायनाप्रकत एवयं कवपकलीगण दनारिना गनाम सभना कक जमलीन कलो कब्जनानके कके सम्बन्ध मम प्रनाथरनना पत परि तहसलीलदिनारि कक ररिपलोटर कलो दिनासखिल ककयना हहै। अततः मनामलके कके समस्त तथ्ययों एवयं पररिसस्थकतययों मम एवयं पतनावलली परि उपलब्ध सनाक्ष्य कके आधनारि परि अकभयसुक्तगण मसुनकेश, सयंजलीव, सकचिन, परिवलीन, कवकपन दिकेव, वलीरिकेन्द व कवकनास व परिम ससयंह कके कवरूद्ध अन्तगरत धनारिना - 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 भना०दियं०सयं० कक कनायरवनाहली कना पयनारप्त आधनारि हहै। अततः उक्त अकभयसुक्तगण कलो कवचिनारिण हकेतसु तलब ककयके जनानके यलोग्य हहै। आदिकेश अकभयसुक्तगण मसुनकेश, सयंजलीव, सकचिन, परिवलीन, कवकपन दिकेव, वलीरिकेन्द व कवकनास व परिम ससयंह कके कवरूद्ध प्रथम दृष्टयना अयंतगरत धनारिना - 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 भना०दियं०सयं० कके कवरूद्ध प्रथम दृष्टयना अपरिनाध कके सलए कवचिनारिण हकेतसु तलब ककयना जनातना हहै। ससूचिली सनाकलीगण प्रस्तसुत करिनके कके पश्चिनात अकभयसुक्तगण कके कवरूद्ध कनयत कतसथ कके सलए समन जनारिली हलो। पहैरिवली 7 कदिन मम कक जनायके। पतनावलली उपसस्थकत अकभयसुक्तगण हकेतसु कदिननायंक- 27.05.2024 कलो पकेश हलो।" 7. I have also perused the complaint where in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 it has been disclosed that complainant has submitted a prompt application on 21.1.2024 to the S.H.O. of concerned Police Station. However, no F.I.R. was lodged and thereafter on 6.2.2024 an application was sent to S.S.P. Moradabad by registered post and only thereafter on 7.2.2024 complaint was filed, therefore, there is no delay on the part of complainant to approach before learned Magistrate. 8. In order to further appreciate above submissions, I have perused the statement of complainant and of witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. 9. Complainant in his complaint has specifically stated about allegations of Trespass, firing in air as well as assault and of mischief. Witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have corroborated above referred allegations in regard to causing hurt, though P.W. 2 has also stated same, therefore, witnesses are substantially consistent in their statements. 10. I have also perused above referred operative part of impugned order that there is a reference of statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., though their contents has not been disclosed. However, as referred above, since this Court is of considered opinion that there is no substantial contradiction in the statements of witnesses, therefore, such submission of counsel for applicants has no legal value. 11. I have also perused impugned order passed by revisional court wherein it has been considered that learned magistrate has considered materials on record minutely and has rightly disbelieved the allegations of firing and summoned the applicants only on basis of material available before him. For reference, relevant part of revisional court's order is reproduced hereinafter: "कवदनान अवरि न्यनायनालय नके अपनके प्रश्नगत आदिकेश मम पररिवनादिली दनारिना पसुसलस कलो 112 नम्बरि परि कनाल करिनके सके सम्बसन्धत कनाल कडिटकेल एवयं कवपकलीगण/कनगरिनानलीकतनारगण दनारिना गनाम सभना कक जमलीन कलो कब्जनानके कके सम्बन्ध मम कदियके गयके प्रनातरननापत परि तहसलीलदिनारि कक ररिपलोटर पतनावलली परि दिनासखिल हलोनके कना उलकेखि करितके हहए प्रश्नगत तलबली आदिकेश कवदनान अवरि न्यनायनालय कक पतनावलली परि उपलब्ध पररिवनादिली व गवनाहनान कके सनाक्ष्य कके आधनारि परि पनाररित ककयना गयना हहै। कवपकली सयंख्यना-2/पररिवनादिली नके कवदनान अवरि न्यनायनालय कके समक अपनना पररिवनादि भना० दियं० सयंकहतना कक धनारिना -307 कके अन्तगरत भली यलोसजत ककयना थना , परिन्तसु कवदनान अवरि न्यनायनालय नके कवदनान अवरि न्यनायनालय कक पतनावलली परि उपलब्ध सनाक्ष्य कके आधनारि परि कनगरिनानलीकतनारगण कलो भना० दियं० सयंकहतना कक धनारिना -307 मम तलब न करितके हहए कके वल मनात भना० दियं० सयंकहतना कक धनारिना -323 मम तलब ककयना हहै, जलो यह दिशनारतना हहै कक , कवदनान अवरि न्यनायनालय दनारिना पतनावलली परि उपलब्ध सनाक्ष्य कना भलली-भनायंकत पररिशलीलन करितके हहए अपनके न्यनाकयक कववकेक कना कवसध - सम्मत तरिलीकके सके प्रयलोग करितके हहए प्रश्नगत आदिकेश पनाररित ककयना हहै। अततः उपरिलोक्त कवश्लकेषण कके आधनारि परि कनगरिनानलीकतनारगण दनारिना वतरमनान फलौजदिनारिली कनगरिनानली मम सलए गयके आधनारि व कनगरिनानलीकतनारगण कके कवदनान असधवक्तना दनारिना प्रस्तसुत ककए गयके तकरयं सके यह न्यनायनालय सहमत नहहीं हहै।" 12. In aforesaid circumstances, I don't find that there is any illegality in the summoning order as well as order passed by revisional court. So far as absence of injury report is concerned, it is not mandatory since allegation is under Section 323 I.P.C. Even otherwise also, at the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. applicants have liberty to crossexamine the complainant and witnesses. 13. It is also not under dispute that relations between parties are not cordial. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants undertakes to appear before learned Trial Court within a period of three weeks and prays that in case any bail application is filed, same may be considered in light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2021) 10 SCC 773. 15. Prayers made in this application are rejected.
Decision
16. This application is disposed of with an observation that in case applicants appear learned Trial Court within aforesaid period and file bail application, same shall be considered in accordance with law taking note of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra). Order Date :- 11.9.2024 SB