Smt. Mitalesh v. Party

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rakesh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.10.2021 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Baghpat, in Complaint Case No. 30 of 2021 (Smt. Mithalesh vs. Ajay Rana and Others), whereby the learned court below dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

3. The brief facts of the case, are that the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Baghpat, alleging that on

19.06.2021, the brother and son of the Village Pradhan, along with others, entered her house, forcibly took her signatures on a Panchayat Agenda Register, used caste-related abusive language, threatened her with death, and physically assaulted her. After the incident, the complainant approached the concerned police station for registration of her complaint, but no FIR was registered, Thereafter she moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint case. Her statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the statements of witnesses Lal Sahab and Rohit were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court, after conducting inquiry, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 2 CRLR No. 1170 of 2022

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is an innocent lady and a member of the Village Panchayat, whereas the opposite parties nos. 2 to 6 are musclemen of the village, who interfere in the day-to-day working of the Village Panchayat. It was contended that on

19.06.2021, the brother and son of the Village Pradhan entered the house of the revisionist and forcibly obtained her signature on the Agenda Register, misbehaved with her, used caste-related abusive words, and threatened to kill her. They also assaulted her physically. After the said incident, the revisionist approached the concerned police station for registration of an FIR, but the police did not register the case. Consequently, she filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint case. The learned trial court thereafter recorded her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of Lal Sahab and Rohit Mogha under Section 202 Cr.P.C., both of whom supported the contents of the complaint.

5. It was further submitted that learned Special Judge, without properly perusing and appreciating the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., dismissed the complaint mechanically vide order dated

26.10.2021. The learned court below passed the impugned order without proper appreciation of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and that a clear prima facie case is made out on the basis of complaint and the supporting witnesses, and the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for opposite parties nos. 2 to 6 submitted that the complaint was filed out of personal enmity. It was argued that the opposite parties never entered the house of the revisionist, nor was any signature taken on the Agenda Register. It was further submitted that there are material contradictions between the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. while the complainant alleged a mere act of snatching (chheena-jhapti) whereas the witnesses deposed about an incident of marpeet inside the house.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 further submitted that the report called from the Panchayat Nirpuda clearly records that no signatures of the complainant were found on the Agenda Register. 3 CRLR No. 1170 of 2022 Therefore, the allegation of forcible signature is false. The learned court below considered these contradictions and reports and found no sufficient ground to proceed. It was also submitted that the learned Special Judge applied his judicial mind, evaluated the oral and documentary evidence, and rightly held that no prima facie offence was made out. Therefore the revision deserves to be dismissed.

8. Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned court below has passed a lawful and reasoned order after full consideration of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and other material on record. There is no illegality or irregularity has been pointed out in the impugned order.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge has carefully examined the entire material available on record. The court below considered the statements of the complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., as well as the report received from the Panchayat Nirpuda. There are material contradictions between the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. while the complainant alleged a mere act of snatching (chheena-jhapti), the witnesses deposed about an incident of marpeet inside the house. The report of the Panchayat Nirpuda clearly establishes that the signature of the complainant was found on the Soochna Register and not on the Agenda Register. The learned trial court has thus correctly relied upon these contradictions and documentary findings and, applying its judicial mind, reached the conclusion that no prima facie case was made out against the opposite parties.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 (para 28) has held: "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 4 CRLR No. 1170 of 2022 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 scrutinize 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."

11. Likewise, in Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 SC 1815, the Apex Court observed: "The judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record before taking cognizance or issuing process to ensure that the process of court is not misused."

12. This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order dated 26.10.2021. The order is well reasoned, based on evidence, and in accordance with law.

13. In view of the above discussion and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Supra) and Punjab National Bank (Supra), this Court finds that the impugned order dated

26.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Baghpat does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

14. Accordingly, the present criminal revision stands dismissed. October 9, 2025 Md Faisal (Chawan Prakash,J.) MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rakesh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.10.2021 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Baghpat, in Complaint Case No. 30 of 2021 (Smt. Mithalesh vs. Ajay Rana and Others), whereby the learned court below dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

3. The brief facts of the case, are that the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Baghpat, alleging that on

19.06.2021, the brother and son of the Village Pradhan, along with others, entered her house, forcibly took her signatures on a Panchayat Agenda Register, used caste-related abusive language, threatened her with death, and physically assaulted her. After the incident, the complainant approached the concerned police station for registration of her complaint, but no FIR was registered, Thereafter she moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint case. Her statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the statements of witnesses Lal Sahab and Rohit were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court, after conducting inquiry, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 2 CRLR No. 1170 of 2022

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is an innocent lady and a member of the Village Panchayat, whereas the opposite parties nos. 2 to 6 are musclemen of the village, who interfere in the day-to-day working of the Village Panchayat. It was contended that on

19.06.2021, the brother and son of the Village Pradhan entered the house of the revisionist and forcibly obtained her signature on the Agenda Register, misbehaved with her, used caste-related abusive words, and threatened to kill her. They also assaulted her physically. After the said incident, the revisionist approached the concerned police station for registration of an FIR, but the police did not register the case. Consequently, she filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint case. The learned trial court thereafter recorded her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of Lal Sahab and Rohit Mogha under Section 202 Cr.P.C., both of whom supported the contents of the complaint.

5. It was further submitted that learned Special Judge, without properly perusing and appreciating the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., dismissed the complaint mechanically vide order dated

26.10.2021. The learned court below passed the impugned order without proper appreciation of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and that a clear prima facie case is made out on the basis of complaint and the supporting witnesses, and the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for opposite parties nos. 2 to 6 submitted that the complaint was filed out of personal enmity. It was argued that the opposite parties never entered the house of the revisionist, nor was any signature taken on the Agenda Register. It was further submitted that there are material contradictions between the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. while the complainant alleged a mere act of snatching (chheena-jhapti) whereas the witnesses deposed about an incident of marpeet inside the house.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 further submitted that the report called from the Panchayat Nirpuda clearly records that no signatures of the complainant were found on the Agenda Register. 3 CRLR No. 1170 of 2022 Therefore, the allegation of forcible signature is false. The learned court below considered these contradictions and reports and found no sufficient ground to proceed. It was also submitted that the learned Special Judge applied his judicial mind, evaluated the oral and documentary evidence, and rightly held that no prima facie offence was made out. Therefore the revision deserves to be dismissed.

8. Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned court below has passed a lawful and reasoned order after full consideration of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and other material on record. There is no illegality or irregularity has been pointed out in the impugned order.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge has carefully examined the entire material available on record. The court below considered the statements of the complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., as well as the report received from the Panchayat Nirpuda. There are material contradictions between the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. while the complainant alleged a mere act of snatching (chheena-jhapti), the witnesses deposed about an incident of marpeet inside the house. The report of the Panchayat Nirpuda clearly establishes that the signature of the complainant was found on the Soochna Register and not on the Agenda Register. The learned trial court has thus correctly relied upon these contradictions and documentary findings and, applying its judicial mind, reached the conclusion that no prima facie case was made out against the opposite parties.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 (para 28) has held: "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 4 CRLR No. 1170 of 2022 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 scrutinize 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."

11. Likewise, in Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 SC 1815, the Apex Court observed: "The judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record before taking cognizance or issuing process to ensure that the process of court is not misused."

12. This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order dated 26.10.2021. The order is well reasoned, based on evidence, and in accordance with law.

13. In view of the above discussion and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Supra) and Punjab National Bank (Supra), this Court finds that the impugned order dated

26.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Baghpat does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

14. Accordingly, the present criminal revision stands dismissed. October 9, 2025 Md Faisal (Chawan Prakash,J.) MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad