Dhanveer Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 5.2.2011, passed by Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun in complaint case no.3108 of 2010, u/s 498A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Dataganj, District Budaun. Aggrieved from the said order petitioner preferred a criminal revision no.151 of 2011 before the revisional court, which was dismissed by order dated 18.1.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12(Ex Cadre), Budaun.

The opposite party no.2 moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against her husband and in-laws in respect of demand of dowry of one lac rupees and a motorcycle, and on account of non fulfillment, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. The said application was treated as complaint and on the basis of statements of complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of the witnesses, namely Kavita as P.W.1 and Kamla Devi as P.W.2, prima facie found offence is made out against the petitioners, and summoned them to face the trial u/s 498A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that false allegations have been made in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The present criminal prosecution has been launched only to harass the petitioners. The summoning order has been passed in a routine manner. Aggrieved by the summoning order petitioners preferred a criminal revision no.151 of 2011 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12(Ex-Cadre). Budaun, whereby the revisional court affirmed the order passed by the court below and rejected the revision by order dated 18.1.2011 in mechanical manner.

Per contra the learned AGA has contended that from bare perusal of the allegation, prima facie offence has been made out against the petitioners. There is no procedural illegality or irregularity in summoning the petitioners. The petitioners may raise objection at the appropriate stage, therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties.

From the bare perusal of the allegations made in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against the applicants. The summoning order has been passed after recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses. At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. At this stage only prima facie offence is to be seen. The petitioners have alternative remedy to raise their defence at the appropriate stage by filing discharge application which shall be considered by the court below in accordance with law. The orders passed by the two courts below are perfectly justified. It is not warranted to interfere with the order passed by the courts below, and as such the prayer for quashing is refused. This petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are directed to appear and surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail within thirty days from today and the same shall be considered and disposed of, if possible on the same day, keeping in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another v. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (67) ACC 966 SC Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

In case they failed to surrender within the aforesaid stipulated period, the court below is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceeding against them.