Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2090 of 2002

Revisionist :- Virendra Kumar Saxena

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

Counsel for Revisionist :- A.K. Sachan

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Matter taken up in the revised list.

Heard Sri A.K. Sachan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Satish Kumar

Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

The present criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the

revisionist with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 19.9.2002

passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in case no.3120 of 2002, State Vs.

Virendra Kumar Saxena, u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST

Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit.

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that in the matter, FIR was lodged

after which final report was submitted. Subsequently, an application under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the first informant which was directed to be

treated as complaint on which the revisionist has been summoned. The present

case is a case of no injury and the exact caste related words have not been

mentioned which knock out the case and proceedings which are with malafide.

The revisionist has been falsely implicated.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the present revision.

It is trite that at the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is

required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the

offence or in other words to find out whether a prima facie case is made out for

summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to

consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to

evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in the case, the Magistrate

cannot consider whether the material before him was credible or reliable or not,

the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether

the materials would lead to conviction or not.

This Court on perusal of the material finds that the averments thereof make out a

case of commission of cognizable offence, prima facie for summoning of the

accused persons.

Learned counsel for the revisionist could not demonstrate as to how the

summoning order suffers from any illegality or perversity or it is an improper

exercise or that any case for summoning the accused person(s), was not made

out, even prima facie, on the basis of the averments in the matter and the

material on record.

The plain position is that in a revision against the summoning order it has to be

considered whether there was anything illegal in the summoning order passed by

the Magistrate on the basis of the material placed before him. If there is such

prima facie material, as obviously is present on the record in this case, then it is

not open for this Court to take into consideration the extraneous material filed

from the side of the accused-revisionist(s) along with the revision petition. There

is no provision for placing on record additional material in the revision against

the summoning order and the Court would be travelling beyond its jurisdiction if

it relied on any extraneous material other than the material led before the

Magistrate. It is always open to the accused to place material before the

Magistrate at the trial which may knock the bottom out of the prosecution case.

Any such material cannot be looked into at this stage to judge whether the

material led before the Magistrate was credible or reliable or not.

In a Criminal Revision (under Section 397 Cr.P.C.) the same principles shall

apply when challenge is made to the summoning order or proceedings as under

482 Cr.P.C.

The principles of quashing have been settled by the Apex Court in the cases of

R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and

Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Other