Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2607
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
Dr. Ritesh Ranjan - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Another - Respondents
Criminal Revision No., 2509 of 2013
Decided On : 15-11-2017
For the Petitioners: Kundan Rai Counsel.
For the Respondents:Govt. Advocate, Chandra Shekhar Chaturved, Sumit Daga.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of analyzing the consistency of incidents and evidence presented in determining the legality of summoning orders and applications for discharge.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Discharge Application - Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act - [323, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act] - The court discussed the application for discharge of the accused person under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. and the summoning order under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act. The court analyzed the facts of the case, the consistency of the incidents, and the evidence presented, ultimately concluding that the impugned order suffered from no illegality, impropriety, and perversity, and dismissed the revision on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between two parties regarding an incident where children playing in an apartment complex caused damage to a bike, leading to a physical altercation and injuries. The accused person filed an application for discharge, which was dismissed by the court, leading to the revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order suffered from no illegality, impropriety, and perversity, and dismissed the revision on merits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the consistency of the incidents, the evidence presented, and the legality of the summoning order and application for discharge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the facts, evidence, and legal provisions, ultimately concluding that the impugned order suffered from no illegality, impropriety, and perversity.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed on merits.
1. Heard Sri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Chandra Shekhar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 472 of 2013-Harcharan Vs. Ritesh Ranjan), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad by which the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad has dismissed the application of the accused person Ritesh Ranjan presented under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. for discharge of the accused person Ritesh Ranjan from the charges in which he has been summoned by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad vide it's order dated 04.05.2013.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the informant Dr. Ritesh Ranjan son of Yugal Kishor Singh, resident of House No. 188, Lumbani Apartment Kaushambi, Sector 14, Ghaziabad (U.P.) has submitted a written application before the Incharge of Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad which was registered as F.I.R.
4. The F.I.R., which is in Hindi Vernacular in narrow compass, is enumerated as below:-
5. The abovementioned informant Dr. Ritesh Ranjan has submitted that in his apartment few children were playing along with his children. Meanwhile one carriage (Theli) was touched by some children and hit one bike which was placed nearby. Due to this, the owner of the bike who was standing there, has beaten his son and Sankalp Saxena son of Vinay Saxena who was playing with his son. In this scuffle, his son received injury in the right eye and right ear and Sankalp also received injury on his right ear. On intervention by his wife, three boys named Bhaskar, Vipin and third brother whose name was not known, summoned their parents. All the five persons also started quarreling with his wife. His wife came inside the house along with their children. They narrated all the incident to him. Suddenly all those five persons entered in his house and started beating and by brandishing a knife hurled life threat and abuses at them and went away from his house. The father of Sankalp also came who had seen the incident. Several inmates of the society also gathered. This incident was of 1.30 hours in the day. His report might be lodged and legal action be taken. Their medicolegal/medical examinations took place at Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan, Karkardooma, Delhi-110032 which were submitted along with the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged on 30.10.2012 at 8.20 hours at Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad. Charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons Bhaskar, Harcharan and Vinay Singh.
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that to counter the charge sheet, one of the accused persons namely Harcharan has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against Ritesh Ranjan, Smt. Unknown, Vinay Saxena and Smt. Roli under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 452, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)11 SC/ST Act, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad and the same was registered as complaint case by the Magistrate seized with the territorial jurisdiction of the matter. Thereafter statement of Harcharan was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses Vinay and Bhaskar both sons of Harcharan under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad has summoned the accused persons Ritesh Ranjan and Smt. Roli under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 SC/ST Act vide it's order dated 04.05.2013.
7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that against the order dated 04.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2,
