Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Beena - Petitioner
Versus
Man Singh & others - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2012
Decided On : 26-02-2024
Revision Petition - Criminal Law - Sections 354, 500, 379 of IPC - The court discussed the legality and regularity of the procedure, the sufficiency of materials for conviction, and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. The court upheld the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge based on different grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint for offences under Sections 354 and 500 of IPC. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons for summoning the accused. The accused filed separate revisions before the Learned Sessions Judge, which were disposed of by a common order. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision and dismissed the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defence of the accused and the documents produced by him were irrelevant for determining the liability of the accused. Different accounts were given of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. The court also discussed the sufficiency of materials for conviction and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of materials for conviction, the legality and regularity of the procedure, and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials, nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant. The court also highlighted the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the requirement for a prima facie case to be made out for summoning the accused.
Final Decision: The court upheld the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and dismissed the present petition.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide which the revision filed by the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) was allowed and the complaint filed by the petitioner (complainant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 500 of IPC. It was asserted that the informant is running a shop at Chamain. The police searched the shop of the complainant on 19.03.2008 and 25.12.2008, without any reason. No recovery was effected from the shop. The complainant was present in her shop on 09.01.2009 at about 6:00 p.m. Jagrati (CW-2)and other customers were also present in the shop. The complainant was ready to go to Shimla to buy articles for her shop when the accused entered the shop and searched it. They could not find anything. Accused No. 3 and 4, came out of the shop and brought some boxes inside the shop. The complainant objected and said that she would not keep any articles in her shop. However, she was told that these articles would be kept for a limited time. Kanwar Singh Dogra (CW-3) and Bablu Rajta(not examined), also reached on the spot in the meantime. The accused argued with them. Rajesh and Suresh, the brothers of the complainant, also reached Chamain to take her to Shimla. The complainant boarded the vehicle to go to Shimla. Accused No. 2 and 3 dragged the complainant out of the vehicle and did obscene acts with her. They tried to drag her in their vehicle. They told the complainant to put her signatures on the papers or else she would be dragged to the police station. Rs.60,000/- kept in an envelope and Mangalsutra being worn by the complainant got lost during the incident. The brothers of the complainant objected to the dragging of the complainant; however, they were taken to some distance in the vehicle. Accused No. 2 and 5 and some police officials went to the house of the complainant, but they did not find anything. The accused entered the shop of the complainant without any search warrant. They had done obscene acts with the complainant. Hence, a complaint was filed to take action against the accused.
3. The learned Trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant- (CW-1), Jagriti (CW-2), Kanwar Singh Dogra (CW-3) and Suresh Dogra (CW-4) and found sufficient reasons for summoning the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 500 and 379 of IPC against accused No. 2, Section 354 and 500 of IPC against accused No. 3 to 5 and Section 500 of IPC against accused No.1.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused preferred separate revisions before the Learned Sessions Judge, which were disposed of by a common order. Learned Sessions Judge, held that police had received secret information against the complainant that she was dealing in liquor without a valid permit. The police went to the shop of the complainant in the presence of witnesses. The complainant/victim picked up some cardboard boxes and threw them from the rear portion of her shop. The police collected 22 bottles of country liquor, three bottles of Beer and one bottle of IMFL from the backyard of the complainant’s shop. The complainant threatened police officials and the other persons. The police registered a case against the complainant for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of H.P. The complainant filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in which no allegations were made against the police. It was only stated that the police had misbehaved
The court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the requirement for a prima facie case to be made out for summoning the accused.
In cases under Section 498A IPC, the Magistrate should consider the factors laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation before issuing a warrant of arres....
The issuance of process in serious criminal offenses must not be mechanical; proper evaluation of evidence and roles of each accused is essential for establishing a prima facie case.
An order summoning an accused in a criminal case is not an interlocutory order and revision is maintainable. The Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue an....
At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defense version or evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant.
The court emphasized that the issuance of process against accused must be based on a proper assessment of evidence, ensuring that legal proceedings are not misused by summoning accused individuals wi....
The public prosecutor must independently assess the legitimacy of withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C, ensuring it serves public justice.
Revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. not maintainable against the revisionary order of the Sessions Judge - No grounds for exercise of inherent power by this Court unde....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
