Satto Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present Criminal Revision has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 16.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 4, Badaun by which he allowed application 14-Kha moved by the prosecution in Session Trial No. 958 of 2009 and summoned the revisionists for facing trial for the offences punishable u/s 363/34, 366/34 and 376/34 I.P.C., Police Station Rajpura, District Badaun.

From the perusal of record, it appears that the revisionists had earlier filed Criminal Revision No. 3218 of 2010 against the order dated 23.07.10 passed by Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4 Badaun in S.T. No. 958 of 2009, whereby the revisionists were summoned u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial. Said revision was allowed by order dated 13.08.2010 on the ground that the Court below while summoning the applicants u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure had failed to record his satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned, in all likelihood, would be convicted and remanded the matter back to the Additional Sessions Judge to decide u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd Rafiq and Anr. LVIII (2007) ACC 254

The Court below by the impugned order after considering the statement of the prosecutrix has summoned the revisionists u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial. The lacuna in the earlier order dated 23.07.2010 of the Sessions Judge has been filled up and in the impugned order, the Court below has recorded his satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned, in all likelihood, would be convicted. I have also perused the statement of prosecutrix P.W. 1.

After having heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A and perused the materials on record, I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court. Instant Criminal Revision lacks merit.

However, in case the applicants surrender before the Court concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided by the court below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and Anr. v. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionists. However, in case, the revisionist do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.