Roop Rani and Ors. vs State of U.P.

C.A. Rahim, J.—This Revision has been directed against the order dated 2071993 passed by the Special Judge, (D.A.A.) Hamirpur in case No. 115/92 under Section 395, I.P.C. By that order the learned Judge summoned the revisionists and fixed the case on 2581993 for appearance. The Appeal was admitted on 5101993 and further proceeding of this case was stayed.

Sri B.N. Singh appearing for the revisionists has submitted that there is no ingredient of Section 395,I.P.C. in this case. He has submitted that the intention which has been disclosed in the petition of complaint, does not amount to commit dacoity. tie has referred Annexure 3, application dated 1101993 filed by respondent No. 2, the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the revisionists went to the spot with lathis and assaulted him. There is also allegation of looting the properties. He has referred the case of Hukum ChandAmalikchand and othersv.M.B. Poddar and another, AIR 1973 SC 540, wherein it is stated that a revision petition, once admitted has to be disposed of on merits. He has also referred the case of Uma Kant Pandey v. A.C.J.M., 1966 ACC 879 (DB). Referring these two decisions the learned counsel has submitted that the allegation of the other side that the revision is not maintainable since the impugned order is an interlocutory order does not hold ground as the instant revision has been admitted on 5101993. So in view of the Hukumchand Amalikchands case (supra) it has to be disposed of on merits. He has also submitted that in Umakant Pandey''s case (supra) it has been held that the revisionapplication is maintainable against the order summoning accused persons.

Sri R.K. Gupta, appearing for the opposite party No. 2, complainant, has submitted that the revision is not maintainable since the impugned order is an interlocutory one. He has referred the case of Kailash Chaudhmy and others v, State of U.P. and another, 1994 ALJ 174. He has also referred to Annexure I of the counteraffidavit where in between the same parties, in connection with another case, being No. 116 of 1992 under Section 395, I.P.C., the revision was dismissed by this Court on 15111994 (in Revision No. 2083 of 1993) holding that no revision lies against the summoning order. Relying on Kailash Chaudhary''s case (supra) it appears that the decision in Hukumchand Amilkchand''s case (supra) was delivered by the Supreme Court in connection with a Civil Revision under Section 115, C.P.C. where it is held that the High Court was in error in dismissing the revision petition on account of failure of the appellants to deposit some rent which had become due. In Uma Kant Pandey''s case (supra) the Division Bench held that the High Court and also other Courts of revision should be slow in interfering against the orders of summoning the accused person and it should be rarest of rare cases when the revisional Courts find that there was absolutely no point to permit the case to proceed. This appears to be the latest view of this Court. So it is necessary to see whether there is no point in this case to permit the case to proceed.

Annexure 3 is the petition of complaint where it has been alleged that the accused persons went inside the house of the complainant, assaulted him, broke open lock and looted away some properties, mentioned in the said petition. On 24111992 two witnesses were examined under Section 202, Cr.P.C. who corroborated the complainant''s version on which the learned Judge has summoned the revisionists under Section 395, Cr. P.C.

In Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan and another, AIR 1980 SC 1780, it has been held that meticulous analysis of evidence at the stage of taking cognizance is an error amounting to irregularity if not illegality. It has also been held that the Magistrate has to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complainant and the evidence recorded during the preliminary enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 there is a prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused. All that he has to see is whether or not there is "sufficient grounds for proceeding" against the accused. At this stage the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if it was the trial Court.

The law as it stands now is clear on this point that at the stage of taking cognizance there is no necessity of finding out whether the prosecution has been able to prove the allegation. He is to find out only the prima facie case. The Division Bench of this Court in Uma Kant Pandey''s case (supra) has also put restriction to a Court of revision about taking up these matters in revision and permitted only when there is absolutely no point to permit the case to proceed. I find that in the instant case there is no scope to come to a finding that the prosecution has no case.

Accordingly, I find that there is nothing to interfere with the finding of the learned Special Judge and this Revision is, therefore, dismissed.The interim order dated 5101993 is hereby vacated.

Revision dismissed.