Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Omprakash And Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Application U/S 482 No.35542 of 2017
Decided on : 10-02-2021
Section 482 - Criminal Complaint - 323, 342, 379, 504 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The daughter of the applicant was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by her husband and his family, leading to her being thrown out of her matrimonial home. A complaint was filed against the husband and his family members, resulting in a summoning order by the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the summoning order was legal and not mechanical, as it reflected consideration of the statements of the complainant and witnesses. The court also noted that the summoning was limited to the accused applicants and that a prima facie case for summoning under the relevant sections was made out.
Issues: The issues included the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and the application of judicial mind in passing the summoning order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory when the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction, and that the summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter requiring the application of judicial mind. The court also highlighted that delay in filing a complaint by itself cannot be a ground to quash the criminal prosecution.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and refused to quash the summoning order and further proceedings of the complaint case.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Azad Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State/opposite party.
2. No one responded for the opposite party no.2 even in the revised call.
3. This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 06.05.2017, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, District Hathras, in Criminal Complaint Case No.1256 of 2016 (Murarilal Vs. Omprakash and others), under Sections 323, 342, 379 and 504 IPC, Police Station Sadabad, District Hathras, as also the entire proceedings of the said complaint case.
4. Briefly stated facts of the case as per the application/petition are that the marriage of the daughter of applicant no.1 was solemnized with the son of opposite party no.2 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals, in which huge amount was spent and so many gifts were presented to the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 and his family persons after sometime of marriage, started demanding additional dowry and as the demand could not be fulfilled the opposite party no.2 alongwith his family persons started harassment and ill treatment to the daughter of the applicant and also committed maar-peet with her. On 25.09.2016 she was thrown out of matrimonial home. On 26.09.2016, the daughter of the applicant no.1 lodged a first information report against the opposite party no.2 and his family members which was registered as Case Crime No. 1211 of 2016, under Sections 323, 498-A, IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri. She was medically examined at District Hospital, Mainpuri on 26.09.2016.
5. The opposite party no.2, as a counter blast and to create pressure to make settlement moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 20.10.2016 which was treated as a complaint case by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, District Hathras. After recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate passed the summoning order dated 06.05.2017 summoning the applicants to face trial under Sections 323, 342, 379, 504, IPC.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused persons are residents of a place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, concerned and as such an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. must have been held which was not held and therefore, the order is bad. He further submits that the order under challenge has been passed mechanically and without judicious application of mind. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz & Another (2013) 2 SCC 488; Ram Dev Food Products Pvt. Lt. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439 and M/s Papsi Foods Limited Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128, in support of his above submissions.
7. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submits that the summoning order has been passed on the basis of the material available on record before the learned Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate was satisfied that a prima-facie case for summoning was made out. The satisfaction is based on the material on record. He further submits that the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., was held as two witnesses were examined. He submits that any particular mode of enquiry is not prescribed under the Code. He has placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Vijay Dhanuka versus Najzma Mamtaj (2014) 14 SCC 638 and in ‘Birla Corporation Ltd versus Adventz Investments And Holdings (2019) 16 SCC 610.
8. I have considered the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
9. I proceed to consider the first submission of the learned counsel for the applicants. The submission is that from the complaint itself it was evid
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
