Sarvjeet Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Rajesh Chandra, J.@mdashThe present revision has been filed against the order dated 28.8.2010. passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia in Complaint Case No. 1251 of 2010 suminoning the accused-revisionists for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506. I.P.C.

2. The Learned Counsel for the revisionists argued that the impugned order has been passed in arbitrary manner and without applying its mind. It was also argued that civil suit was pending between the parties but that fact has not been considered by the lower court. The contention is that the complaint has been filed just to pressurize the revisionist to yield in the civil case.

3. I considered over the argument and perused the record.

4. After filing of the complaint by Prem Chandra the statement of the complainant u/s 200, Cr. P.C. and statements of the witnesses u/s 202. Cr. P.C. were recorded and after considering the evidence available on record, the impugned order was passed. Since there is prima facie evidence against the revisionists for having committed the offences under Sections 452. 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. I am satisfied that the Court concerned has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order.

5. In the case of Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose and Another, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that at the stage of inquiry u/s 202, Cr. P.C. the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction. Again in the case of Smt. Nagivwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kanjalgi and Others I 1976 ACC 225 (SC). while considering the scope of enquiry u/s 202, Cr.P.C., the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the basis of the materials placed by the complainant before the Court; (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (c) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In that case, it has been held by way of illustration that the order of Magistrate issuing process can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value made out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against accused.

6. In the case of S. W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another. XLIV 2002 ACC 168 : 2002 (1) ACR 219 (SC). the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that at the stage of passing order u/s 203. Cr. P.C. searching sufficient ground to convict is not necessary.

7. In view of the above, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

8. The revision is dismissed.

9. However, looking to the nature of the offence, it is provided that if the revisionists surrender in the lower court within two weeks from today, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, if possible, on the same day.