High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jai Chandra & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 22784 of 2007  RD-AH 15676 (18 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 48.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 22784 of 2007
1. Jai Chandra
s/o Shri Asharfi Lal
2. Rajesh Kumar
son of Shri Asharfi Lal
3. Asharfi Lal
son of Shri Maha Dev
4. Bablu son of Sri Harish Chandra
5. Ram Sanehi
son of Shri Kallu
All residents of village Chirkhiri
Police Station Mangalpur, district
Kanpur Dehat.......................................... Applicants-Accused.
1. State of U.P.
2. Bache Lal son of Shri Ganesh
resident of village Chirkhiri Police Station Mangalpur
district Kanpur Dehat.
........................................................ Complainant-opposite parties
Hon'ble B.A. Zaidi, J.
1. On an application filed by Bache Lal (opposite-party no. 2) and pursuant to the order of the Magistrate, Station House Officer, Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat registered a case (Crime No. C-10 / 2006) under sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 324, 325 I.P.C. against the present applicants-accused.
2. The allegation against the applicants was that on 24.2.2006 at 6 O'Clock in the evening they came to this house in village Chirkhiri within jurisdiction of Police Station Mangalpur and beat him up with legs and fists, as also, with Lathies in consequence whereof, he sustained injures.
3. The Police investigated the case and submitted a final report in the court of Judicial Magistrate I, Kanpur Dehat, which did not find favour with the Magistrate, who ordered, issuance of summons against the applicants.
4. The applicants came to this Court in a Crl. Revision (No. 10506.2007) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Singh set-aside the summoning order, and sent back the case, to the Trial Magistrate, for passing an order afresh vide order dated 14.5.2007. When the matter came before the Magistrate, he reaffirmed his order, of summoning the accused .This order is dated 28.6.2007, the English rendition of the relevant part whereof is as follows:
"Heard........ Counsel for the applicants on the final report and protest petition. The Investigating Officer has filed a final report in Case Crime No. C-10/2006, under sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 324, 325 I.P.C. Police Station Mangalpur district Kanpur Dehat, against which, a protest petition has been filed by the complainant, and by filing the objection, the complainant supported the incident and has prayed for the summoning of the accused. The complainant through the protest petition has supported the version of the occurrence. It appears, therefore, justifiable to summon the accused Jai Chandra, Rajesh Kumar, Asharfi Lal, Bablu and Ram Sahehi under sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 324, 325 I.P.C. rejecting the final report.
The final report ,no. 14/06 dated 28.9.2006, is rejected. Accused Jai Chandra, Rajesh Kumar, Asharfi Lal, Bablu and Ram Sahehi are summoned under sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 324, 325 I.P.C.
5. That is how the applicants have come to this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., praying, that proceedings in Crl. Case No. 62/2007 under sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 324, 325 I.P.C. in Case Crime No. C-10/06 Police Station Mangalpur district Kanpur Dehat be quashed.
6. Heard Sri L.M. Singh, Counsel for the applicants and Sri S.D.Tripathi, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
7. The argument advanced, from the side of five applicants, is, that the Magistrate has not analysed the contents of the case diary, and has not given proper reasons, to the conclusion, that the applicants should be summoned in this case.
8. The decision of the Magistrate at this stage, (summoning) is predominately subjective, in character. The law stipulates, giving of reasons for arriving at a conclusion, but there are various stages in the criminal procedure, where giving of detailed reasons will be counter-productive, and render the order illegal. At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is not supposed to examine in details the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, under section 161 Cr. P.C.,or any other evidence available in the case diary. He has only to see, and assess the same, and may mention some semblance of a reason, but he is not supposed to make a critical analysis of the case diary. At this stage, the Magistrate is not supposed to pass a detailed order, because, that would be prejudging the issues. The matter is also to be looked at, from the viewpoint, that later on, at the stage of charge, it will be open to the accused to show that there is no material available against them, on the basis whereof, the charge could be framed. It must be mentioned that no case law of Supreme Court in this case was cited by the counsel before us. Reference was made only to the case of Mohammad Yusuf and others versus State of U.P. and another, ACC 2007 (58) 971 which is based on the premises that proper investigation was not conducted, and is dependant on its own particular facts, and is consequently not of any relevance, in this case.
9. The result is that, the order of the Magistrate should be sustained, and the Application under section 482 Cr. P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.