- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Krishna Lal Chawla And Others v. State Of U.P. And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 13.1.2020 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Criminal Revision No. 202 of 2010, and the summoning order dated 4.4.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in Complaint Case No. 2942 of 2018. The complaint case involves allegations under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Pallypuram, District Meerut. The petitioners also prayed for a stay on further proceedings in the complaint case.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the summoning order dated 4.4.2019 and the revisional court order dated 13.1.2020 suffer from illegality or infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?
- Whether the provisions of Section 468 CrPC bar the taking of cognizance in the present complaint case?
- Whether a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners to proceed with the trial?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The complaint was filed belatedly and based on false facts and malice.
- An NCR was already lodged by the petitioners against the complainant regarding the same matter.
- The cognizance order is barred by the provisions of Section 468 CrPC.
- The Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind and record satisfaction before passing the summoning order.
- Neither the summoning order nor the revisional court order made out a prima facie case against the petitioners.
- The complaint and witness statements do not disclose offences under the cited IPC sections.
- Reliance was placed on Section 468 CrPC and a prior order of this Court in an application under Section 482 CrPC dated 1.11.2019.
State's Arguments
- The petitioners have been summoned in accordance with law.
- The revisional court passed a detailed order affirming the summoning order.
- The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Order in Application under Section 482 CrPC no. 37980 of 2019, decided on 1.11.2019 | Used to argue the bar on cognizance under Section 468 CrPC and the necessity of prima facie satisfaction | The Court held that the petitioners cannot rely on this precedent to discard the summoning order, as the Magistrate had recorded a specific finding of a prima facie case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the record and found that the Magistrate had analyzed the evidence and recorded specific findings of a prima facie case before passing the summoning order. Consequently, the petitioners' contention that no prima facie case exists was rejected. Regarding the applicability of Section 468 CrPC, the Court noted that the summoning order included allegations under Section 506(II) IPC, which carries a punishment of up to seven years and is not subject to the limitation under Section 468 CrPC. The Court further observed that conflicting versions, including the prior NCR lodged by the petitioners, are matters to be resolved at trial and cannot be grounds to dismiss the complaint at the summoning stage. The revisional court's order was found to be detailed and reasoned. The Court concluded that interference was not warranted at this stage, as leading of evidence and detailed adjudication would occur at trial.
Holding and Implications
The petition is refused and disposed of.
The Court upheld the summoning and revisional court orders, allowing the complaint proceedings to continue. The petitioners were directed to surrender and apply for bail within sixty days, with no coercive action to be taken during this period. The decision directly affects the parties by permitting the trial to proceed but does not establish any new precedent.
Om Prakash-VII, J.:— The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the order dated 13.1.2020 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court Room No. 4, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 202 of 2010, CNR No. UPME01-006023-2019 and the summoning order dated 4.4.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 2942 of 2018, CNR No. UPME04-035416-2018 as well as the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 2942 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Pallypuram, District - Meerut and further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned AGA appearing for the State.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint was filed at belated stage on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. One NCR was already lodged on the part of the petitioners against the complainant. Cognizance order is barred by provisions of Section 468 CrPC. Concerned Magistrate while taking cognizance on the complaint did not take into account these facts and without applying judicial mind and recording satisfaction passed the impugned summoning order against the petitioners. Referring to summoning order as well as the order passed by revisional court it is submitted that both the courts below have committed illegality. No prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the provisions of Section 468 CrPC as well as the order by another Bench of this Court in Application u/s 482 no. 37980 of 2019, decided on 1.11.2019. It is further submitted that from the version of complaint as well as statement of witnesses, offence under the aforesaid Sections is not made out against the petitioiners. General allegations have been made in the complaint. The impugned orders suffer from illegality and infirmity.
4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that petitioners have been summoned in accordance with law. The Revisional Court also passed a detailed order. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the order passed in application u/s 482 CrPC relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. In this matter, as is evident from the record, while passing the impugned summoning order concerned Magistrate has analyzed the entire evidence collected on the complaint and has also recorded specific finding regarding a prima facie case. Thus, submission by learned counsel for petitioners in this regard are not accepted. Petitioners cannot get any help with the ratio laid down in the order passed by another Bench of this Court in the application u/s 482 CrPC relied upon by them.
7. As far as applicability of the provisions of Section 468 CrPC is concerned, summoning order in the matter was passed for the offence under Section 506(II) IPC also. Allegation against petitioners is for extending threat to kill the complainant which clearly comes under the purview of Section 506(II) IPC and is punishable upto 7 years for which no time limit has been provided under Section 468 CrPC. If submission on behalf of petitioners that one NCR was already lodged on behalf petitioners regarding same offence is taken into consideration, then also which version is correct and which is not correct will be decided by the trial court at appropriate stage after leading of evidence. At this stage version taken by the complainant cannot be thrown out on this sole ground. Hence, in view of above discussions, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders. The impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and from the material available on record it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the petitioners. The revisional court also passed a detailed and reasoned order. Further, to adjudicate/decide the pleas raised before this Court leading of evidence would be required, which can appropriately be done before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present petition is refused.
8. In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the petitioners be given. Hence, it is observed that in case the petitioners surrender before the court below and apply for bail within sixty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of sixty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.
9. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the petitioners to surrender before the court concerned.
10. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Alert