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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The petitioners/applicants have challenged the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 4, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 128 of 2020 (Sanjay Sharma and other versus State of U.P. and another) and the summoning order dated 23.06.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 1657 of 2020 against applicant no. 1 under Sections 376, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and against other applicants under Sections 376/120B, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Saharanpur.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint under Sections 376, 120B, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur against the applicants alleging that the applicant no. 1 committed rape and all the accused persons harassed her for dowry. The Magistrate recorded the statement of opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Magistrate summoned the applicants by order dated 23.06.2020. The applicants filed Criminal Revision No. 128 of 2020 which was rejected on 13.10.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders under challenge have been passed without application of judicial mind and mechanically. He submits that after filing the complaint, the Magistrate called for police report and as per that report filed on 10.06.2020 the matter pertained to property dispute between the parties and all the allegations were levelled, falsely, only to create pressure. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2 took A.T.M. Card of the applicant no. 1 and had withdrawn Rs. 1,09,000/-on different dates regarding which a complaint was made to the S.S.P. Saharanpur on 30.01.2020 as well as on I.G.R.S. Portal. Thereafter, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., was also filed on 11.03.2020 upon which an F.I.R. was lodged in Case Crime No. 356 of 2020 under Sections 379, 406 I.P.C. on 25.07.2020 at Police Station Sadar Bazar, District-Saharanpur. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2 had filed another complaint against the applicants and others on 11.03.2020 almost with the same allegations to cause the harassment of the applicant and extract money. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the summoning order as well as the revisional order are based on the recorded conversation in C.D. which was made part of the complaint case, but even from the hearing of the C.D. it would appear that the applicants have been falsely implicated.

5. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the statement of the Doctor, P.W. 3 did not support the complaint case, in as much as his submission is that complainant did not state the commission of rape to the said doctor.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the averments of the complaint are supported by the material on record and do make out case of commission of cognizable offence against the applicants. The Magistrate has passed the order of summoning of applicants satisfying prima facie that a cognizable offence is made out and such satisfaction being based on material on record which finds consideration by the Magistrate, including the material in the form of C.D. filed by the complainant which was also heard by the said Magistrate, the order of summoning is perfectly justified. At this stage, the Magistrate has to satisfy, only prima facie, for the purposes of summoning the accused persons. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants, in the nature of the defence of the applicants is concerned learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that at the stage of summoning, the defense