Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46 of 2023

Applicant :- Shree Kant And Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Law Lko. And 2

Others

Counsel for Applicant :- R.K.S. Chauhan

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and

perused the record.

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to

opposite party no. 3 is dispensed with.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been

filed with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings

with regards the applicants in connection with Criminal

Complaint No. 381 of 2022 (Criminal Case No. 060001982020,

Smt Premvati Vs. Shashi Kant and others), P.S.- Hasanganj,

District- Unnao, which is pending in the court of Civil Judge

(JD)/FTC Unnao i.e. opposite party no. 2, thereby the trial court

has taken cognizance on the above said complaint and

summoned the applicants to face the trial.

Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that on the basis

of the statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded u/s

200 and 202 CrPC respectively, summoning order was passed

against the applicants without applying judicial mind. It is next

submitted that no disclosed offence is made out against the

applicants, as statement of the complainant does not corroborate

the medical report. The whole story as narrated in the statement

of the witnesses has been cooked and manufactured, therefore,

the court below has materially erred in summoning the

applicants, as such the orders are liable to be set aside.

Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the

petitioners while pressing the present petition submits that the

court below while summoning the petitioner has materially

erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in

criminal case is a serious matter and the court below without

dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touch

stone of probability should not summon accused person to face

criminal trial. It is further submitted that the court below has not

taken into consideration the material placed before the trial

court and, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in

summoning the petitioners.

So far as quashing of entire proceedings is concerned, from the

perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of

the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made

out against the petitioners. All the submission made relates to

the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon

by this Court. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen

in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of

R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of

Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar

Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and

another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence

of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the

petitioners have got a right of discharge according to the

provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a

proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all

the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial

court.

So far as the summoning order passed by the learned trial court

is concerned, at the stage of taking cognizance, trial court can

simply form an opinion as to whether the case is fit for taking

and committing the matter for trial or not. In the present case,

learned trial court clearly expressed his opinion that he perused

all the record and clearly indicated that the material placed

before him is sufficient to proceed the case. Thus, the

cognizance order is not a proforma order. Every aspect is

touched by learned trial court and petitioner fail