Rahis Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Others

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—List revised. None appeared on behalf of the revisionist. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The present revision has been filed against the order dated 6.7.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Rahis Ahmad v. Khalik and others. Complaint Case No. 3626 of 2006, by which after receiving evidence under Sections 200 and 202 , Cr.P.C. for the complainant/revisionist, the court below has passed the summoning order dated 6.7.2006 by which only one accused was summoned for offence under Section 406 , I.P.C.

Aggrieved by this impugned order, complainant has preferred the present revision with prayer to summon the other accused persons mentioned in this complaint. The ground as mentioned in the memo of revision is that evidence adduced by the complainant/revisionist make out, inter alia, the commission and offence against other opposite parties of the complaint herein summoned. Therefore, the other persons also have been summoned like opposite party No. 1 Khalil.

A perusal of record shows that court below had considered the available evidences on merits and rightly summoned one accused for offence under Section 406 , I.P.C. Learned Magistrate after going through the evidences was not satisfied about prima facie commission of any other offence. Finding of fact reached by lower court has been challenged in this revision. A perusal of impugned order shows that lower court had appreciated the evidences and circumstances of the case and thereafter reached to his conclusion. There may be difference of opinion as to whether on basis of those evidences conclusion reached at by learned Magistrate is correct, or the other probability pointed out by revisionist is proper. But certainly revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for interference in impugned order merely on ground that on basis of available facts there is probability of reaching to on more conclusions other than the one reached by the trial court.

In ruling Jagannath Choudhary and Others Vs. Ramayan Singh and Another, , Hon''ble Apex Court held:

"Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction". In this ruling Hon''ble Supreme Court also held that "It is not an appeal wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible, neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible."

In the impugned order, the details relating to facts of the case were discussed by learned Magistrate who considered them and found the commission of offence under said Section 406 , I.P.C. by one accused; and finding on those points does not appear to be incorrect. Since conclusion reached by lower court in impugned order is prima facie presentable and probable, therefore, on basis of above mentioned ruling it is held that such order should not be interfered with in revision. In Full Bench ruling of Hon''ble Supreme Court M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998 UPCrR 118, it has been held that:

"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. Magistrate had to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

Even in ruling Veer Singh Yadav v. State of U. P. and another, 2010 (70) ACC : 2010 (2) ACR 2192, this Court had held that in such a matter "it will be open for applicant to raise the issue before the court concerned at the appropriate stage, who shall act upon in accordance with law." In present case learned Magistrate appears to have completed his legal duty mentioned in ruling by using his legal mind and discretion in passing of impugned order. There appears no error in finding of learned Magistrate in impugned order. On basis of above discussion it is held that there appears no commission of any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in passing impugned order dated 6.7.2006 that may warrant interference in it by exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, revision fails. It is hereby dismissed.