AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 377 wordsPankaj Purohit, J
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The challenge herein is to the order dated 15.02.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in Complaint No.42 of 2020 (Subhash v. Rachna Sharma and others) as also the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.05 of 2021 (Rachna Sharma v. Subhash Chandra Sharma).
An application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by respondent no.2 before the Court of Magistrate against the applicant and others stating therein that the applicant is his daughter-in-law and in order to exert pressure upon him and his son, he has filed several cases against them due to which his son began to reside with the applicant by taking a separate house on rent. The incident of 07.10.2019 was narrated in the application when the complainant was beaten, hurled abuses and threatened to life at the hands of respondents. On that application, learned Magistrate by his order dated 11.12.2019 directed to register the case and call the report from police. However, the case was then treated as a complaint case. Learned Judicial Magistrate Vikas Nagar Dehradun by his order dated 15.02.2021 proceeded to summon the applicant and others for the offences u/s 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Challenging the said order, Criminal Revision No.05 of 2021 was carried, which too met with the fate of dismissal on 13.09.2022. Challenging both the orders, present C482 application has been filed.
I have heard the parties and gone through the impugned judgments. In my view, as per the allegations made in the application moved by respondent no.2, the Trial Court on the basis of evidence produced u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was perfectly justified in summoning the applicant to face the trial. On that reasoning only, the Revisional Court also dismissed the revision. Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Moreover, the allegations leveled in the complaint can only be subject to veracity after the evidence is led and the witnesses are subjected to cross-examination. Thus, there is no force in this C482 application and the same is hereby dismissed.
Trial Court is directed to proceed ahead with the trial forthwith.