Baladeen v. Laxmi and others, P. S. Ata, District Jalaun, whereby

1. Heard Mr. Roopendra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Santosh Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 03.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoiti Affected Areas), Jalaun at Orai, in Compliant Case No. 06 of 2019, Baladeen v. Laxmi and others, P. S. Ata, District Jalaun, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the compliant of the revisionist.

3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that he had applied for a tube-well connection. On 23.07.2018, at about 1:00 p.m., when the employees of the electricity department started working at the field of the revisionist, opposite party nos. 2 to 11 came there and started opposing the employees to connect the cable from the pole. The revisionist restrained the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 but they falling the poles and also committed mar-peet with the revisionist and forcibly theft the wire and also took Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket. The revisionist visited the local Police Station regarding registration of F.I.R. but the local Police did not register any report. Thereafter, he visited the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police but they also did not take any action against the opposite party nos. 2 to 11.

4. It is further submitted that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2 CRLR No. 1441 of 2023 was filed by him but the same was directed to be treated as a compliant case by the learned Magistrate. The revisionist got examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. P.W.1, Sriram and P.W.2 Gulab were examined and they supported the version of the complaint but the learned Special Judge vide order dated 03.08.2022 dismissed the said compliant. The learned Trial Court has passed this order against the facts of the case where a prima facie case is made out against the opposite party no.2 to 11. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the compliant case because the compliant was filed on the basis of false facts. The revisionist wants to implicate the whole family members in the said case. Therefore, this revision may be dismissed.

6. As per the facts of the case, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoiti Affected Areas), Jalaun at Orai stating the fact above-mentioned. The said application was treated as a compliant case. The revisionist got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also produced P.W.1, Sriram and P.W.2 Gulab under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2022.

7. In the case of Inox Air Products Limited Now Known as Inox Air Products Private Limited and another Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that :-

33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except recording submissions complainant, no reasons are recorded for issuing the process against the accused persons.

34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special 3 CRLR No. 1441 of 2023 Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749 (supra): "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding 4 CRLR No. 1441 of 2023 against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused."

9. In the present case, the revisionist has filed an application against 11 persons stating that he was beaten by them and they also took Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket as well as theft about 100 kg. cable wire. The complainant has stated in his compliant that he sustained grievous injuries in the incident. Learned Trial Court in the impugned order has taken into consideration the statements of the revisionist and the witnesses given under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. Learned Trial Court has also mentioned that the revisionist has not filed any injury report with the application. The learned Trial Judge has given a detailed and reasoned order. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or lack of judicial mind. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. October 15, 2025 Vijay (Chawan Prakash,J.) VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Roopendra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Santosh Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 03.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoiti Affected Areas), Jalaun at Orai, in Compliant Case No. 06 of 2019, Baladeen v. Laxmi and others, P. S. Ata, District Jalaun, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the compliant of the revisionist.

3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that he had applied for a tube-well connection. On 23.07.2018, at about 1:00 p.m., when the employees of the electricity department started working at the field of the revisionist, opposite party nos. 2 to 11 came there and started opposing the employees to connect the cable from the pole. The revisionist restrained the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 but they falling the poles and also committed mar-peet with the revisionist and forcibly theft the wire and also took Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket. The revisionist visited the local Police Station regarding registration of F.I.R. but the local Police did not register any report. Thereafter, he visited the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police but they also did not take any action against the opposite party nos. 2 to 11.

4. It is further submitted that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2 CRLR No. 1441 of 2023 was filed by him but the same was directed to be treated as a compliant case by the learned Magistrate. The revisionist got examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. P.W.1, Sriram and P.W.2 Gulab were examined and they supported the version of the complaint but the learned Special Judge vide order dated 03.08.2022 dismissed the said compliant. The learned Trial Court has passed this order against the facts of the case where a prima facie case is made out against the opposite party no.2 to 11. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the compliant case because the compliant was filed on the basis of false facts. The revisionist wants to implicate the whole family members in the said case. Therefore, this revision may be dismissed.

6. As per the facts of the case, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoiti Affected Areas), Jalaun at Orai stating the fact above-mentioned. The said application was treated as a compliant case. The revisionist got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also produced P.W.1, Sriram and P.W.2 Gulab under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2022.

7. In the case of Inox Air Products Limited Now Known as Inox Air Products Private Limited and another Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that :-

33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except recording submissions complainant, no reasons are recorded for issuing the process against the accused persons.

34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special 3 CRLR No. 1441 of 2023 Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749 (supra): "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding 4 CRLR No. 1441 of 2023 against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused."

9. In the present case, the revisionist has filed an application against 11 persons stating that he was beaten by them and they also took Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket as well as theft about 100 kg. cable wire. The complainant has stated in his compliant that he sustained grievous injuries in the incident. Learned Trial Court in the impugned order has taken into consideration the statements of the revisionist and the witnesses given under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. Learned Trial Court has also mentioned that the revisionist has not filed any injury report with the application. The learned Trial Judge has given a detailed and reasoned order. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or lack of judicial mind. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. October 15, 2025 Vijay (Chawan Prakash,J.) VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad