Sanjeev Kansal and Others vs State Of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA. The instant revision has been preferred against the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar dated 18.10.2011, whereby the revisionists have been summoned in complaint case no. 1284 of 2011, Kripal Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kansal & others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 379 IPC.

The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the opposite party no. 2 is an employee of the revisionists, who has lodged a frivolous complaint against them, alleging therein, that fifteen days prior to 3.7.2011, he kept 30 litres of mentha oil at their shop, but they had surreptitiously sold away the oil. When it was demanded they told that it has already been sold. On demand of money the revisionists assaulted the opposite party no. 2 with fisticuffs and threatened for dire consequences. They also allegedly looted five hundred rupees from the complainant. The said incident was witnessed by the father of the complainant, Harkesh Singh and one Sau Singh. The complainant tried to lodge the first information report, but when no report could lodge, he filed complaint. The statements of the complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of the witnesses, namely Harkesh Singh and Sau Singh, who had supported the prosecution case. The court below after going through the record arrived at conclusion that prima facie offence is made out and passed the order in a routine manner, summoning the revisionists to face the trial.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that initially police has submitted its report that allegations are absolutely false and no first information report has been registered. A first information report was registered u/s 4/25 Arms Act by the revisionists in which the charge sheet has been submitted against the opposite party no. 2. The present prosecution is a counter blast launched against them.

Per contra the learned AGA has contended that there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. The revisionists have been summoned after recording of the statements of the complainant and witnesses. There is no merit in this revision and deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the order passed by the court below. From the perusal of the order impugned it appears that there is no procedural illegality or perversity in the order to summon the revisionists to face the trial. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. At this stage the court below has passed the order analyzing the pros and cons of the case. No interference is required to quash the order passed by the court below.

The revision devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. However, the revisionists are directed to surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, which shall be heard and disposed of by the court concerned, if possible, on the same day in view of the law laid down in Smt. Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. 2005 Cr.L.J. 755, which has also been approved by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).