Sant Prakash and Ors v. The State of U.P and Anr

Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6188 of 2013 Applicant :- Sant Prakash And Ors. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Onkar Singh Kushwaha Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 to oppose the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. despite the fact that name of counsel for the opposite party No.2 is shown in the cause list. Further, present case is listed under the heading "These cases shall not be adjourned". In view of aforesaid background of the case, this Court proceeded to decide the case on merits. Present application has been filed impeaching the summoning order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Court No.17, Raebareli (in short "trial court") in Complaint Case No.60 of 2010 (Indra Pal Pasi vs. Sant Prakash & Others) under Sections 436, 427, 504, 506(2) IPC & Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Deeh, District-Raebareli and also the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, X-Cader-1, Raebareli in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2012 (Sant Prakash and Others vs. Indra Pal and Another). The order dated 16.06.2012 being relevant on reproduction reads as under:- "पतቔ ावली‌वास् ते‌तलबी‌आदेशाथቕ र‌वि नयत‌ह।ै ‌तलबी‌के ‌वि बन् द‌पर‌परि रवादी‌केु वि वदቛ ान‌अधि धवकሹ ा‌को‌सुना‌तथቕ ा‌पतቔ ावली‌का‌सम् यक‌परि रशीलन‌वि कया। परि रवादी‌की‌ओर‌से‌स् वयं‌को‌धारा ‌200 ‌द०ं पቚ ०स०‌एवं‌धारा ‌202 द०ं पቚ ०सं०‌के ‌तहत‌तथቕ ा‌पी०डब् लू०‌1‌के ‌रू प‌में‌ननकऊ‌व‌पी०डब् लू‌2 के ‌रू प‌में‌देशराज‌को‌परीधि कत‌कराया‌गया‌ह।ै ‌परि रवादी‌भि शवपቚ साद‌का बयान‌अन् तगरत‌धारा ‌200 ‌द०ं पቚ ०स०‌एवं‌साकीगण‌पी०डब् लू० ‌1 ‌व पी०डब् लू‌2‌का‌बयान‌अन् तगरत‌धारा‌202‌द०ं पቚ ०सं०‌के ‌तहत‌अविं कत वि कया‌गया‌है,‌जि जन् हों ने‌पቚ ाथቕ रना‌पतቔ ‌अन् तगरत‌धारा‌156‌(3)‌द०ं पቚ ०सं०‌में वरኌ णत‌तथ् यों ‌का‌समथቕ रन‌वि कया‌ह।ै ‌परि रवादी‌अनुसूधि चत‌जाधि त‌का‌ह।ै परि रवादी‌के ‌मूल‌पቚ ाथቕ रना‌पतቔ ‌अन् तगरत‌धारा‌156‌(3)‌द०ं पቚ ०सं०‌तथቕ ा‌शेष गवाहान‌दቛ ारा‌वि दये‌गये‌साकኚ य‌में‌अभि भयकሹु गण‌दቛ ारा‌जाधि त‌सूचक‌शब् द‌" साले‌पजि सया"‌का‌पቚ योग‌कर‌परि रवादी‌के ‌घर‌में‌आग‌लगाने,‌गाली‌गलौज करने‌व‌जान‌से‌मारने‌की‌धमकी‌देना‌कहा‌गया‌ह।ै ‌इस‌पቚ कार‌उपलब् ध साकኚ य‌के ‌आधार‌पर‌परि रवादपतቔ ‌में‌वरኌ णत‌तथ् यों ‌की‌पቚ थቕ म‌दृ षቖ या‌पुवि षቖ ‌होती ह।ै अतः‌पतቔ ावली‌पर‌उपलब् ध‌साकኚ य‌व‌पूणर‌वि ववेचन‌से‌अभि भयकሹ गणु अभि भयकሹ गण‌संतपቚ काश,‌भानपቚू काश,‌वि वजय‌पቚ काश‌व‌अजय‌पቚ काश‌केु वि वरु दቍ ‌पቚ थቕ म‌दृ षቖ या‌अपराध‌अन् तगरत‌धारा-‌436,‌427,‌504‌एवं‌धारा 3‌(1)(10)‌एस०सी०एस०टी‌एक् ट‌बनता‌पाया‌जाता‌ह।ै ‌उन् हें‌तलब वि कये‌जाने‌का‌पयारप ‌आधार‌ह।ै आदेश अभि भयकሹु गण‌उपरोकሹ ‌को‌अन् तगरत‌धारा‌436,‌427,‌504‌,‌506‌(2) एवं‌धारा‌3‌(1)(10)‌एस०सी०एस०टी०‌एक् ट‌में‌तलब‌वि कया‌जाता‌ह।ै परि रवादी‌सूची‌गवाहान‌दालि खल‌कर।े ‌अभि भयकሹु गण‌के ‌वि वरु दቍ ‌सम् मन‌जारी हों ‌परि रवादी‌पैरवी‌अन् दर‌सप ाह‌कर।े ‌पतቔ ावली‌वास् ते‌हाजि जरी‌मुसኌ लजमान वि दनांक‌19.7.2012‌को‌पेश‌हो।‌" Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the applicants   says   that   the   trial   Court,   after   considering   the material available on record including the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. observed that the offence under Sections 436, 427, 504 IPC & Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, is made out, however, the applicants have been summoned under Sections 436, 427, 504, 506(2) IPC & Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act. As such, the trial Court committed error in summoning the applicants under Section 506(2) IPC. It is further stated that the revisional court while passing the order dated 29.04.2013, whereby rejected the revision filed by the applicants, failed to consider the fact that the trial Court in the order of summoning dated 16.06.2012 observed that the offence under Sections 436, 427, 504 IPC & Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, is made out, however, summoned the applicants under Sections 436, 427, 504, 506(2) IPC & Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, as such, the order of the revisional Court is also liable to be interfered with. It is further submitted that before the trial court informant/complainant Inderpal has not indicated any facts based upon the which Section 506(2) IPC can be attracted. To attract Section 506(2) IPC other witnesses have also not indicated anything in their statements recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Thus, interference of this Court is required. Prayer is to allow the application. Learned AGA opposed the present application. He says that the applicants are not entitled to any protection from this Court for the reasons to the effect that the order dated

16.06.2012 was assailed before the revisional court and the revisional court, after considering the entire aspects of the case, affirmed the order of the trial court dated 16.06.2012 vide its order dated 29.04.2013. Thus, the concurrent findings are against the applicants and at this stage of summoning, no interference is required. However, he could not dispute that after taking note of facts of the case, trial court specifically observed in its order dated 16.06.2012 that the offence under Sections 436, 427, 504 IPC & Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act is made out and despite this, applicants were summoned in a additional Section 506(2) IPC and also that said aspect of the case was not taken note of by the revisional court. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record including the order impugned dated

16.06.2012, it is apparent that the trial Court specifically observed that offence under Sections 436, 427, 504 IPC & Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act is made out and despite this, summoned the applicants in a additional Section 506(2) IPC. Thus, this Court finds that the trial Court committed error in summoning the applicants. Further, revisional court has also not taken note of this aspect of the case while dismissing the criminal revision filed by the applicants vide order dated

29.04.2013. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that interference in the matter is required. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 16.06.2012 as also the order of revisional court dated 29.04.2013 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the revisional court to pass fresh order, as per law, after considering the entire material available on record, expeditiously. With the aforesaid observations, the application is allowed. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 Vinay/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench