Arjun Singh @ Arjun and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA.

The instant revision has been preferred against the summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Mathura dated 3.11.2011, whereby the revisionists have been summoned in criminal complaint case No. 1114 of 2011, Smt. Rekha Vs. Kaptan & another, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(i)(x) S.C./S.T. Act.

The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that frivolous complaint has been lodged against the revisionists by the opposite party No. 2, that she was abused by using caste related words and was assaulted, as they were trying to grab the house of the opposite party No. 2. The court below merely on the basis of the statement of complainant-opposite party No. 2 and witnesses, arrived at the conclusion that prima facie offence is made out against them and passed the order in a routine manner, summoning the revisionists to face the trial.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the entire allegations are absolutely false and frivolous and the present prosecution has been launched just to cause harassment of the revisionists and as such liable to be quashed.

Per contra the learned AGA has contended that from the bare perusal of the complaint itself, prima facie offence has been made out against the revisionists. The revisionists are trying to grab the house of the opposite party No. 2 who is a helpless lady and when no first information report could be lodged, she moved complaint. There is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. The revisionists have been summoned on the basis of allegations made in the complaint and the statements of the complainant and witnesses. There is no merit in this revision and deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the order passed by the court below. From the perusal of the order impugned it appears that there is no procedural illegality or perversity in the order to summon the revisionists to face the trial. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. At this stage the court below has passed the order analyzing the pros and cons of the case. No interference is required to quash the order passed by the court below.

The revision devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

However, the revisionists are directed to surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, which shall be heard and disposed of by the court concerned, if possible, on the same day in view of the law laid down in Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., , which has also been approved by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).