Doodhi Lal Singh and Others vs The State of U.P and Another

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record.

This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the summoning order dated 4.8.2010 passed by learned J.M. 1st, Gonda in Complaint Case No. 155/2001, Under Sections 323/504/506 IPC, Police Station Chhapiya, District Gonda and also quash the further proceeding pending in the Court of learned J.M. 1st, Gonda in Complaint Case No. 155/2001, Under Sections 323/504/506 IPC, P.S. Chhapiya, District Gonda against the petitioners.

The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that during the course of inquiry, the Magistrate recorded the statement of the Doctor who had examined the injured. The duration of injuries given by the Doctor does not coincide with the time of the occurrence as alleged by the complainant. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate without applying his mind to the evidence adduced by the complainant in mechanical way has summoned the accused, therefore, the impugned summoning order has been issued without application of mind and is liable to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition.

Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

From a perusal of the impugned summoning order, it appears that the accused were earlier summoned by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/J.M., Gonda summoned the accused after recording the statement of the complainant u/s 200 of the Code and the statement of witnesses u/s 202 of the Code for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Gonda keeping in view the first summoning order and materials available on record, prima facie, found evidence in support of offence under Sections 323/504/506 IPC consequently he has summoned the accused which in my opinion does not suffer from any illegality and does not call for any interference.

The petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of offence, it is provided that in case the accused appears before the court below within 30 days from today and moves any application for bail, the same will be heard and disposed of by both the courts below expeditiously preferably on the same day.

Till then no coercive steps will be taken by the court below against the accused.

It is also provided that the accused after his release on bail moves any application for his discharge at the appropriate stage of trial, the same will be disposed of by the Trial Court by passing speaking and reasoned order.