High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Hanuman Deen & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 13773 of 2007  RD-AH 14836 (1 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Criminal Misc. Application No.13773 of 2007
Hanuman Deen and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
Hon. A. K. Roopanwal, J.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been moved to quash the order dated 8.1.07 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Banda whereby the applicants were summoned on the complaint of O.P. No.2 to stand trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323/325/504/506/392/394, IPC.
It appears from the record that a complaint was filed by O.P. No.2 against the applicants in the court of Special Judge (D.A.A.) Banda. The court recorded the statements of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and his witness Santosh under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and after perusal of the statements summoned the applicants vide order dated 8.1.07. Feeling aggrieved by this order the applicants have come up before this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued on two points. Firstly, that the Presiding Officer of the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Banda was not competent to entertain the complaint and secondly, the Presiding Officer had not followed the procedure as provided in the proviso attached to sub-section 2 to Section 202, Cr.P.C.
So far as the first argument is concerned in that regard a report was obtained from the registry of the High Court in which it was reported that on the date of the impugned order the Presiding Officer of Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Banda was exercising the powers of Special Judge under the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983. In view of this report the Presiding Officer, who passed the impugned order, was empowered under Section 7 (1) (a) of U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 to entertain the complaint and to go ahead with it. Section 7 (1) (a) of the aforesaid Act lays down that a Special Court may take cognizance of any scheduled offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence.
Thus, this argument is not a correct argument that the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Banda was not competent to entertain the complaint and to take cognizance on such a complaint.
So far as the second argument is concerned that too is also not a convincing argument.
Section 7 (3) of U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 lays down that the Special Court constituted under the aforesaid Act shall be a court of Sessions. When that is the position then there could be no occasion for the application of the provision embodied in the proviso attached to sub-section 2 to Section 202, Cr.P.C. This provision is applicable to the Court of Magistrate and when the Special Court is not a Court of Magistrate, hence, the above provision was not applicable to it and it cannot be said that before issuing process against the applicants the Court was bound to require the complainant to produce all the witnesses which he wanted to examine in the case.
In view of the above discussion, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order impugned in this application. Consequently, the application is liable to be rejected.
This application is rejected accordingly.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.