Shivram Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and another) but the same was also dismissed by way of
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178573 Court No. - 85 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9921 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shiv Ram Chaudhary Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Verma,Gambhir Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3 The instant petition has been preferred for challenging the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti through which petitioner has been summoned in pursuance to section 420 of IPC, being aggrieved with the order dated 14.02.2020 petitioner challenged the same by way of criminal revision no. 97 of 2021 (Shivram Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another) but the same was also dismissed by way of affirming the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, II, Basti which impugned the present petition. 4. While assailing the orders dated 14.02.2020 and 08.06.2022 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation whatsoever has been put forward through criminal complaint no. 5477 of 2018 which was earlier registered in the year 2013 and at that time the same was registered as 121/12/2013 through which it has been informed that by way of making some forged entries petitioner sought for some unemployment bonus for which he was not illegally entitled for, certain discrepancies with regard to the date of birth and some entries in the relevant certificates have been highlighted, whereupon statements were recorded by respondent no. 2 under section 201 Cr.P.C., Om Prakash and Shyamnarayan were recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. who are having no concerned either with the employment exchange, or Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow or any Sanskrit institution as highlighted by the respondent no. 2. 5. Although one Bal Krishna Tiwari son of late Bhagwati Prashad Tripathi who recorded his statement under section 202 Cr.P.C being the Principal, Sarju Prashad Ramdutt Madhyamik Vidayaly Kathaar, Jungle, District Basti who certified the petitioner being the institutional candidate for the examination conducted by Utter Pradesh Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even after recording the statement under section 202 of Cr.P.C by the competent authority i.e. in shape of Principal on the basis of statement recorded by two other witnesses petitioner has been summoned in pursuance to section 420 of IPC which was highly illegal. 7. On the similar set of facts and grounds learned revisional court also decline to adhere the grievances as put forward by the petitioner who filing the criminal revision no. 97 of 2021 (Shivram Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another). 8. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal complaint preferred at the behest of respondent 2 is for settling certain personal scores and with some ulterior motive since there is a civil suit already pending since 2012 itself wherein father of the respondent 2 and the petitioner was opponent with each other in case no. 338 of 2012 (Ramdeen and anther Vs. Ganga Ram and Others), and as such whatever the proceedings initiated in shape of lodging complaint against the petitioner for ulterior motive and having malice with the petitioner. 9. Per contra learned AGA vehemently oppose the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no option left before the learned Magistrate after recording statement under sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and if the same is indicating of committing any crime under any specific section in that situation the power vested under section 202 of Cr.P.C. the concerned Magistrate who take cognizance by way of summoning the concerned person in pursuance to the sections attracting the crime whatsoever has been committed and indicated through the complaint, in the instant matter the same has been done by the learned Magistrate by way of passing order dated 14.02.2020 and the same has been upheld by learned revisional court vide order dated 08.06.2022 and the same are not having any legal infirmity. 10. After having the rival submissions extended by the learned counsel for the parties the core issue which has been apprised by respondent no. 2 that certain entries have been manufactured by the petitioner for some ulterior motives and for seeking certain illegal advantage out of the same, but at no point of time learned Magistrate concerned who passed order dated 14.02.2020 took any pain to verify the incident on the basis of the statement recorded under sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C, only one person connected and related to the factual aspects who recorded his statement being the Principal sanctified the entire certificate ensured the innocence of the petitioner, but at the same time while summoning the petitioner learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate relied upon the statement recorded by the two other witnesses who were having no concerned with any of the institution or board from where the petitioner sought certain certificate of examination. 11. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also failed to even direct who investigate the matter under section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., wherein the specific provisions are available for directing the investigation be carried out either by police or by private person, wherein the technical issue are involve such as genuineness of the certificate from the institution concerned the same can be directed by the concerned Magistrate to be inquired by a private person or the expert of the same field wherein all the powers have been provided by Cr.P.C that Investigating Officer accept to arrest. 12. Order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti dated 14.02.2020 must having some foundation for summoning the petitioner with some effective finding, if arrived or found by concerned learned court after recording statement under sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. 13. In the instant matter three witnesses recorded their statements under section 202 Cr.P.C. wherein one who can be said to be the expert in the matter being the Principal of the institution clearly recorded his statement in favour of the petitioner that being the institutional candidate he appeared in the examination and obtained certificate. The other two witnesses are having no concerned either with the employment bonus or with the institutions connected with the concerned board of examination and as such under which circumstances the petitioner has been summoned the same is still under clouds and the duty of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is to clear the clouds of doubt by way of recording specific reasoning and finding for summoning the petitioner, but the same is absence in the order dated 14.02.2020. Unfortunately these legal aspects were left to be considered by learned revisional court also. 14. Matter relates to the adjudication on the basis of only legal aspect and as such provision for issuing notices to respondent no. 2 is hereby dispensed with. 15. On the basis of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and discussion made both the orders passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti and learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Basti dated 14.02.2020 and 08.06.2022 are hereby set aside. 16. However matter is remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti for reexamining the statements made by the witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C alongwith the statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C and passed fresh and reasoned order, if required.
Decision
17. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 13.11.2024 Vikram