Advocates:
['KRIPA SHANKAR TIWARI', '', 'SHIVANI CHAUDHARY', 'G A', '', 'RAM RAJ PANDEY']

Court No. - 89

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5082 of 2022

Revisionist :- Sachin And 3 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Kripa Shankar Tiwari,Shivani Chaudhary

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Raj Pandey

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as

well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This criminal revision is filed against the order dated 30.10.2022 passed by

Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Case No. 1604 of 2021 (State Vs. Rahul and

others) Case Crime No. 298 of 2020, P.S. Singhawali, District Baghpat. By the

impugned order learned Magistrate has summoned the revisionists under section

319 Cr.P.C. to face trial for the offence under section 323, 504, 506 and 354 IPC.

The FIR of this case was lodged on 21.9.2020 at 14:40 hours with regard to the

incident dated 15.9.2020 at about 6:30 p.m. Besides other avermnts it is alleged

in the FIR that seven accused persons namely Ramesh, Chachin, Smt. Ram

Bhateri, Manish, Smt. Sheela, Vilendra and Smt. Suneeta with common

intention and armed with Lathi, Danda, country made pistol and sharp edged

weapons entered into the house of the first informant and started to assault first

informant and his son Charchil causing them injuries. They also torn the clothes

of the first informant and threatened her with death. The first informant and her

son received injuries in this incident and they were medically examined. After

investigation charge-sheet was submitted only against Smt. Sheela, Smt. Ram

Bhateri, Vilendra and Rahul. During course of trial the complainant Ilmo was

examined as P.W. 1. Thereafter, an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was

moved by the prosecution to summon the other accused persons named in the

FIR on the ground that Smt. Ilmo-the complainant is also an injured witness. In

her statement before the court she has supported the allegations of the FIR. The

learned trial court after hearing the parties by the impugned order has summoned

the revisionists to face trial for the offence under section 323, 504, 506 and 354

IPC.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that according to

allegations of the FIR Charchil son of complainant was also assaulted but in his

statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Charchil has not named the revisionists.

The complicity of the revisionists was also not found in the incident by the I.O.

during course of investigation and they were exonerated. It is also contended

that FIR has been lodged with delay of six days without any plausible

explanation. The learned trial court has not considered the objections filed

against the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned

order. The learned trial court has passed the order in a cursory manner without

application of mind. During course of investigation it is found that Sachin is

employed in police department and on the alleged date of incident he was

present on his duty. It is next contended that till the time of passing the

impugned order only one witness P.W. 1 has been examined and only on that

basis the impugned order has been passed which is perverse and illegal.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 contended that

revisionists are named in the FIR with specific allegations of being armed with

deadly weapons, lathi, danda and assault. The complainant and her son have

suffered injuries in this incident. The complainant is also an injured witness.

She has fully corroborated the allegations of the FIR and her previous statement

under section 161 Cr.P.C. The I.O. has not recorded the statement of injured

witness namely Charchil and just to benefit the accused recorded his statement

at his own and on its basis exonerated the revisionist-accused. It is further

contended that the complainant/injured witness in her statement before the court

has fully cor