Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 14208
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
KAILASH NARAYAN AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
A482/14218/2022
A second application to quash summons cannot be entertained when earlier revision petitions against the same summons order are still pending.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SUMMONS - [Section 319] - Court dismissed the application seeking to quash the summons issued by the trial court, as the applicants had already filed revision petitions against the earlier summons order, which were still pending before the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO Act case. They had earlier filed revision petitions against a similar summons order, which were pending before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the applicants had not shown any fresh cause of action for filing the present application, as the earlier revision petitions were still pending. It further held that the interim protection granted in the earlier revision petitions would continue to operate in those proceedings.
Issues: Whether the applicants could file a second application to quash the summons when the earlier revision petitions were still pending.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that no second cause of action arises when a matter is already pending before the court. It held that the applicants could seek relief in the pending revision petitions, and there was no need for a separate application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the present application, leaving it open to the applicants to make appropriate applications in the pending revision petitions.
Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14218 of 2022
Applicant :- Kailash Narayan And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants and
learned AGA for the State.
2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 07.05.2022
passed by the learned Additional Sessions/Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Jhansi. It reads as below:
"07.05.22
ववद पपकवरव गयव। पपकवर पर अभभयपक ममनन कक हवजजरर मवफक पवररनव पत सवरकक त।
अभभयपक अरभवनद कक भवरद भवगत भतजर पर ववरनट जवरर हह। अतत अभभयपक अरभवनद कक
समबनध मम पव० पत० भनरसत भकयव जवतव हह।
अभभयपकगण कह लवश एवव भतलमक मव० उचच नयवयवलय सक सरगन कक वववत अदतन ससरत
कक समबसनधत पभत दवजखल करनक हकतप अनककम अवसर भदयक जव चपकक हह। परनतप अदतन
ससरत सक समबसनधत पभत दवजखल नहह कक गई।
अभभयपकगण समबसनधत सरगन पभत दवजखल हम।
अतत पतववलर भद० 19.05.22
कम अभगम आदकश हकतप पकश हम।"
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is, earlier
the applicants had been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in
Sessions Trial No. 47 of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Monu @
Pahalwan), arising out of Case Crime No. 0331 of 2015, under
Sections 16/17/3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, vide order dated
23.01.2020. Against that order, the applicants have approached
this Court by means of Criminal Revision No. 675 of 2020
(Kailash Narayan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) and Criminal
Revision No. 460 of 2020 (Trilok Yadav Vs. State of U.P. &
Anr.). Both revisions have been entertained and further by
separate orders dated 18.02.2020 and 07.02.2020, interim
protection had been granted both to Kailash Narayan and Trilok
Yadav. At the same time, those interim orders could not be
extended beyond the period of six months owing to COVID
circumstance.
4. In view of such fact, it has been submitted, the direction
issued by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 would stand distinguished.
However, the learned court below has failed to take notice of
the same and has summoned the applicants.
5. On the other hand, learned AGA would submit, since the
applicants having approached this Court by means of the earlier
revisions which are still pending, no second cause of action has
arisen as may allow the Court to entertain the present
application.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the record, whether or not the interim order granted in
earlier Criminal Revision No. 675 of 2020 (Kailash Narayan
Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) and Criminal Revision No. 460 of
2020 (Trilok Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) continues to
operate is a matter to be considered in those proceedings. In
face of admitted pendency of the earlier filed revisions, the
relief being sought by the applicants may be considered and be
granted, if warranted, in those proceedings alone. No second
cause of action has arisen as may allow the Court to entertain
the present application.
7. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed, leaving it
open to the applicant to make appropriate application in the
pending revisions.
Order Date :- 3.1.2023
Abhilash
Digitally signed by :-
ABHILASH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
