Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Budaun, (State v. Irfan and
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:147905 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29431 of 2024 Applicant :- Irfan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
1.Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan,learned A.G.A. 2. By means of this application, applicants have approached this Court for quashing the entire proceedings in Session Case No. 795 of 2024 (Old Criminal Misc. Case No. 848 of 2023) as well as Summoning Order dated 18.03.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Budaun, (State Versus Irfan and 04 Others) whereby Applicants have been summoned Under Section 395 of I.P.C., Police Station- Bisauli, District-Budaun. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that by impugned summoning order dated 18.3.2024 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C., applicants have been summoned to face trial under Section 395 I.P.C. Relevant part of summoning order is reproduced hereinafter: "पररिववाददी नने अपनने बयवान धवारिवा २०० ददं०प्र०सदं० मम कथन ककयवा हहै कक कवपकदीगण हसनहैन , इरिफवान, ररिहवान, जमदीरि एवदं ममुनदीरि घरि मम घमुस आयने औरि उसने तथवा उसककी पत्नदी कक मवारिवापदीटवा। सभदी नने एक रिवाय हककरि मनेरिदी पत्नदी दफकीनवा बनेगम कने गलने सने एक सकनने ककी चहैन वजनदी एक तकलवा व घरि ककी अलमवारिदी सने १८,०००/- रूपयने जक मनेरिदी पत्नदी कने इलवाज कने ललए रिखने थने , ललूट ललयवा। सदी०डब्ल्यलू०-२ दफकीनवा नने अपनने बयवान धवारिवा २०२ ददं०प्र०सदं० मम पररिववाद तथवा पररिववाददी कने कथननों कवा समथरन करितने हहयने कवपकदीगण दवारिवा एक रिवाय हककरि मनेरिने गलने ककी सकनने ककी चहैन करिदीब एक तकलने ककी व घरि अलमवारिदी मम सने १८,०००/- रूपयने ललूटनने कवा कथन ककयवा हहै। सदी०डब्ल्यलू०-२ ररियवासमुददीन व सदी०डब्ल्यलू०-३ शमशवाद खवादं कने दवारिवा भदी एक सकनने ककी चहैन व १८,०००/- रूपयने कवपकदीगण दवारिवा ललूटने जवानने कने कथन कवा समथरन ककयवा गयवा हहै। पररिववाद पत्र मम ककयने गयने कथन, सवाकदीगण दवारिवा कदयने गयने बयवाननों, पररिववाददी कने कवदवान अलधवकवा कने तकर्को कने प्रकवाश मम प्रथम दृष्टयवा ललूट ककी घटनवा कवा हकनवा पवायवा जवातवा हहै। अतत कवपकदीगण इरिफवान, ररिहवान खवादं, हसनहैन खवादं, जमदीरि एवदं ममुनदीरि कने कवरूद्ध प्रथम दृष्टयवा अपरिवाध अन्तगरत धवारिवा ३९५ भवा०ददं०सदं० कवा बनतवा हहै। कवपकदीगण उक धवारिवा कने अन्तगरत कवचवारिण हनेतमु तलब ककयने जवानने यकग्य हहै।" 4. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that earlier applicants' side has lodged an F.I.R. against complainant's side on 23.1.2022 for an offence of rape wherein after investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 11.3.2022. Further proceedings as well as status of trial is not on record. He further submitted that without any pleadings to support his submissions, since trial has reached up to the stage of testimony of prosecution witnesses, only in order to put pressure on applicants side a complaint was lodged after about two months. He further submitted that a motive has been assigned in the complaint, but the same has not been corroborated in the statement of complainant and of witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further refers judgment passed by Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors, (1998) 5 SCC 749, that application of mind has to be applied to verify the truth of complainant and witnesses which is not present in the impugned order. No revision has been filed against the impugned summoning order. 6. In order to appreciate above submissions, I have carefully perused impugned order as well as other materials available on record. 7. As referred above, F.I.R. was lodged on 23.1.2022, whereas present case is arising out of an occurrence took place on 13.8.2024. Since status of trial is not on record, therefore, argument of learned counsel for the applicant in respect of counterblast due to event in the proximity does not survive. 8. In the complaint it has been mentioned that relations between parties was not cordial which is also evident from contents of F.I.R. lodged at the instance of applicants side. 9. Motive has not been mentioned in the statement of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. However, rest of the allegations as mentioned in the complaint is being corroborated therein i.e. applicants have entered inside the house of complainant and committed an offence under Section 395 I.P.C. 10. At this stage, learned Trial Court has to consider the statements recorded on oath that on basis of same there were sufficient grounds to proceed against applicants or not. Summoning order has to be supported by requisite reasons as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 11. As referred above, in the impugned order, learned Trial Court has considered statements of complainant as well as of witnesses who remained consistent so far as allegations in respect of Section 395 I.P.C. is concerned. Learned Trial Court has assigned requisite reasons also. 12. At the stage of summoning, there is not much requirement to consider alleged motive. Even otherwise also, applicants further have a liberty at the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. or thereafter to cross-examine complainant and witnesses. 13. Reasons assigned in the impugned order are sufficient. This Court also takes note of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, 2024 INSC 626 that in case reasons has been assigned in the impugned order on the basis of material that there are sufficient grounds to proceed, this Court may not invoke inherent jurisdiction, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order impugned. 14. Prayers made in this application are rejected. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prayed that applicants will appear before learned Trial Court within a period of three weeks from today and will file bail application, and in case bail application is filed same shall be considered in accordance with law.
Decision
16. This application is disposed of with an observation that in case applicants appear before learned Trial Court within aforesaid period and file bail applications, same shall be considered in accordance with law. Order Date :- 11.9.2024 SB