Mishri and Others vs State of U.P.

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record.

This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 05.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi in Complaint Case No. 42 of 2010 (Sukh Lal v. Mishri and Ors.), under Sections 380, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi.

The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the complainant Sukh Lal in his application u/s 156(3) of the Code has assigned the role of snatching Kundal to accused Mishri while he in his statement recorded by the Magistrate u/s 200 of the Code has assigned role of snatching Kundal to accused Nirmala and wife of complainant did not assign any role of snatching Kundal to anyone. In this way, no offence u/s 380 I.P.C. is made out against the accused. On the basis of allegation made in the complaint as well as statements of witnesses, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from non application of mind which 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.

Although the complainant in his statement has assigned role of snatching Kundal to accused Mishri but other witnesses have specifically stated that the accused armed with lathi and danda entered into the house and they gave lathi and danda blows to the complainant, his wife and daughter. On the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant, learned Magistrate found, prima facie, evidence against the accused in support of offence under Sections 452, 323, 380, 504, 506 I.P.C., therefore, he by the impugned order summoned them. Although there is inconsistency in the allegation of complainant and the statements of witnesses as to who had snatched Kundal but the statements of complainant and witnesses that the accused had entered into the house and caused injuries to the complainant, his wife and daughter are consistent. Therefore, in my opinion the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and hence, the same cannot be quashed. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case accused-petitioners appear before the court concerned within 20 days from today and move any application for bail, the same will be considered and disposed of by the courts below expeditiously, preferably on the same day.