Laxmi Narain v. Bhagirath and others), CNR No. UPAG

grams. The revisionist was detained in a room and despite several request, the accused persons do not release him and threatened for dire consequences. The accused Vinod opened fire upon the revisionist and his family members but they anyhow escaped. In the aforesaid incident, family members of the revisionist namely, Abhishek, Dinesh, Sangeeta @ Sunita and Ramu sustained injuries and they were medically examined in the District Hospital, Agra on 17.11.2020. The revisionist went to the police station concerned to lodge the F.I.R. but the police did not register his case. Thereafter the revisionist sent an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra through registered post on 04.12.2020 but he also did not paid any heed on the application of the revisionist. Having no option, the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court/Special Sessions Judge (D.A.A.), Agra for registration of the F.I.R. against the opposite party nos. 2 to 11. The complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 86 of 2020 (Laxmi Narain Vs. Bhagirath and others), Police Station Tajganj, District Agra. After recording the statement of the complainant/revisionist under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of the prosecution witnesses namely, Abhishek, Dinesh and Sangeeta Dhakre @ Sunita under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Agra dismissed the aforesaid complaint by impugned order dated 17.01.2023. 3 CRLR No. 998 of 2023

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is an old and ailing senior citizen aged about 70 years. His son was seriously ill and was admitted in G.R.P. Hospital, Agra from 13.11.2020 to 20.11.2020 and some relatives came there to see his ailing son. On

17.11.2020 at about 3.00 P.M. the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 and 20 other persons armed with lathi, danda, iron rod and country made pistol came at the house of the revisionist and they used filthy language with the revisionist and domestic items were thrown by them. They also looted Rs. 60,000/- from the box and also looted a number of jewellries about 500 grams. It is further submitted that in the said incident, family members of the revisionist namely Abhishek, Dinesh, Sangeeta Dhakre @ Sunita and Ramu got injured. It is next submitted that the revisionist visited the nearest police station for registration of the F.I.R. but his F.I.R. was not registered by the concerned police. Thereafter he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Sessions Judge (D.A.A.), Agra for registration of the F.I.R. but the same was treated as complaint case. Thereafter the revisionist was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and PW-1 Abhishek, PW-2 Dinesh and PW-3 Sangeeta Dhakre @ Sunita have also been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and they have also supported the prosecution version but the learned Special Sessions Judge (D.A.A.), Agra dismissed the complaint without considering the facts of the complaint. It is also submitted that the learned trial court has not stated anything about the medical examination reports of the injured persons in the impugned order. It is also submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court is wholly illegal, arbitrary and suffers from manifest error 4 CRLR No. 998 of 2023 of law as well facts and circumstances of the case. It is next submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the compliant under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the revisionist has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. due to previous enmity. He has tried to implicate the whole family members of the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 and 20 other unknown persons. It is next submitted that the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 have not committed any offence. The injury reports of the injured persons do not support the contents of the complaint. It is also submitted that if the offence has been committed by 30 persons, there would have been grievous injuries to the injured persons. It is next submitted that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the revisionist. There is no illegality or perversity in passing the impugned order which may call for any interference by this Court, thus the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the facts as mentioned above, it is clear that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist was for getting the case registered but the same was treated as complaint. The complainant got himself examined under Section 5 CRLR No. 998 of 2023 200 Cr.P.C. and PW-1 Abhishek, PW-2 Dinesh and PW-3 Sangeeta Dhakre @ Sunita were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. The learned trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

8. 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 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 6 CRLR No. 998 of 2023 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 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. The learned trial has given a detailed reasoning in the impugned order. The implication of almost 30 persons in this case also states that the revisionist wants to implicate the whole family members of the opposite party nos. 2 to 11. The injury reports of the injured persons do not support the contents of the revisionist filed in the complaint. Moreover, the revisionist had not mentioned in the complaint as to why the offence was committed by the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 and he has not mentioned the motive for commission of the offence. The learned trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, 7 CRLR No. 998 of 2023 perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

10. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed. October 13, 2025 Rmk. (Chawan Prakash,J.) RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

grams. The revisionist was detained in a room and despite several request, the accused persons do not release him and threatened for dire consequences. The accused Vinod opened fire upon the revisionist and his family members but they anyhow escaped. In the aforesaid incident, family members of the revisionist namely, Abhishek, Dinesh, Sangeeta @ Sunita and Ramu sustained injuries and they were medically examined in the District Hospital, Agra on 17.11.2020. The revisionist went to the police station concerned to lodge the F.I.R. but the police did not register his case. Thereafter the revisionist sent an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra through registered post on 04.12.2020 but he also did not paid any heed on the application of the revisionist. Having no option, the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court/Special Sessions Judge (D.A.A.), Agra for registration of the F.I.R. against the opposite party nos. 2 to 11. The complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 86 of 2020 (Laxmi Narain Vs. Bhagirath and others), Police Station Tajganj, District Agra. After recording the statement of the complainant/revisionist under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of the prosecution witnesses namely, Abhishek, Dinesh and Sangeeta Dhakre @ Sunita under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Agra dismissed the aforesaid complaint by impugned order dated 17.01.2023. 3 CRLR No. 998 of 2023

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is an old and ailing senior citizen aged about 70 years. His son was seriously ill and was admitted in G.R.P. Hospital, Agra from 13.11.2020 to 20.11.2020 and some relatives came there to see his ailing son. On

17.11.2020 at about 3.00 P.M. the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 and 20 other persons armed with lathi, danda, iron rod and country made pistol came at the house of the revisionist and they used filthy language with the revisionist and domestic items were thrown by them. They also looted Rs. 60,000/- from the box and also looted a number of jewellries about 500 grams. It is further submitted that in the said incident, family members of the revisionist namely Abhishek, Dinesh, Sangeeta Dhakre @ Sunita and Ramu got injured. It is next submitted that the revisionist visited the nearest police station for registration of the F.I.R. but his F.I.R. was not registered by the concerned police. Thereafter he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Sessions Judge (D.A.A.), Agra for registration of the F.I.R. but the same was treated as complaint case. Thereafter the revisionist was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and PW-1 Abhishek, PW-2 Dinesh and PW-3 Sangeeta Dhakre @ Sunita have also been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and they have also supported the prosecution version but the learned Special Sessions Judge (D.A.A.), Agra dismissed the complaint without considering the facts of the complaint. It is also submitted that the learned trial court has not stated anything about the medical examination reports of the injured persons in the impugned order. It is also submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court is wholly illegal, arbitrary and suffers from manifest error 4 CRLR No. 998 of 2023 of law as well facts and circumstances of the case. It is next submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the compliant under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the revisionist has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. due to previous enmity. He has tried to implicate the whole family members of the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 and 20 other unknown persons. It is next submitted that the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 have not committed any offence. The injury reports of the injured persons do not support the contents of the complaint. It is also submitted that if the offence has been committed by 30 persons, there would have been grievous injuries to the injured persons. It is next submitted that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the revisionist. There is no illegality or perversity in passing the impugned order which may call for any interference by this Court, thus the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the facts as mentioned above, it is clear that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist was for getting the case registered but the same was treated as complaint. The complainant got himself examined under Section 5 CRLR No. 998 of 2023 200 Cr.P.C. and PW-1 Abhishek, PW-2 Dinesh and PW-3 Sangeeta Dhakre @ Sunita were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. The learned trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

8. 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 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 6 CRLR No. 998 of 2023 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 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. The learned trial has given a detailed reasoning in the impugned order. The implication of almost 30 persons in this case also states that the revisionist wants to implicate the whole family members of the opposite party nos. 2 to 11. The injury reports of the injured persons do not support the contents of the revisionist filed in the complaint. Moreover, the revisionist had not mentioned in the complaint as to why the offence was committed by the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 and he has not mentioned the motive for commission of the offence. The learned trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, 7 CRLR No. 998 of 2023 perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

10. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed. October 13, 2025 Rmk. (Chawan Prakash,J.) RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad