Rajendra And Four Others vs Ganga Devi

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been filed for

quashing the summoning order dated 19.08.2017 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of complaint case no. 2688 of 2016, Smt. Ganga vs.

Rajendra and others, pending in the court of learned II Additional Civil Judge (SD)/Juridical Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udha Singh Nagarf o(r

short, ‘the case’). By order dated 19.08.2017, the petitioner Sonu has been summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 452,

504, 506 and 354 IPC and other petitioners have been summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 452, 504 & 506 IPC.

Facts briefly stated are that the respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code against the petitioners. This application was

treated as a complaint. According to it, on 02.05.2016 at 4:30 P.M., the petitioners collectively entered into the house of the respondent, abused her

and assaulted her with lathi, danda, fist and kicks and daughters of the respondent were molested. After the inquiry under Section 200 and 202 of the

Code, by the impugned order the petitioners have been summoned.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complaint is a counterblast of an FIR lodged by the petitioner Rajendra against the two

sons of respondent for various offences under Penal Code as well as under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989. It is also argued that in order to pressurize the petitioners to enter into a compromise, false case has been filed by the respondent; there is

no independent witness.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also drew the attention of the Court to para 3 of the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code filed by the

respondent, wherein, it is stated that after the incident, two sons of respondent were arrested by the Police and it is argued that, in fact, the act was

committed by the sons of the respondent only.

On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it is argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and the factual aspects that have

been raised, may be taken in defence, in the trial.

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code, the principles which governs exercise of jurisdiction under this section are well settled. The

scope is too wide but restricted by the settled principles. In case, prima facie, case is not made out definitely, intervention in these proceedings are

warranted but meticulous examination of the evidence is not expected of, they are matter to be left to be tested during trial.

Instant is the case against the summoning order. It is also a settled law that summoning should not be in a routine or mechanical manner. The

Magistrate is required to apply its judicial mind while summoning the accused. After all, the person is required to undergo trial. At this stage of

summoning an accused, prima facie, case is to be seen.

Petitioners have filed a copy of the FIR as annexure-4 to this petition, which is lodged by the petitioner Rajendra against three persons. This FIR

was lodged on 23rd June, 2016. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the FIR is against the sons of the respondent and it was lodged after

obtaining an order under Section 156 (3) of the Code. This FIR reveals that application vide Section 156 (3) of the Code was written on 5th May,

2016. Undoubtedly, after the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against Shyam Babu and Jagdish, who according to the learned counsel

for the petitioners, are sons of the respondent. Fact remains that the FIR of the petitioners was lodged on 23rd June, 2016 and it also a fact that the

application under Section 156 (3) of the Code was filed by the respondent on 10th May, 2016. The date of incident in the FIR lodged by the petitioners

and the date of the incident as stated in the application filed by the respondent are different.

Complaint of the respondent was filed on 10th May, 2016, whereas as stated the FIR of the petitioner Rajendra was lodged on 23rd June, 2016.

Though it is based on an application under Section 156(3) of the Code which purportedly was presented on 05.05.2016, but merely on this basis, at this

stage, it cannot be said that the complaint is a counterblast. While passing the impugned order the court below has discussed all the materials also. The

summoning order is not in a routine and mechanical manner. It is based on the statements under Section 200 and 202 of the Code. It has also recorded

that the respondent‘s ankle joint was fractured. Therefore, this Court is of the view that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. There

is no reason to interfere. The petition under Section 482 of the Code deserves to be dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that directions may be issued that the bail application of the petitioners be considered

on the same day, when they surrender before the court concerned.

The petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned and apply for their bail, the same may be disposed of,

as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.