Babu Ram Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 899 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1633 of 2002)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1633 of 2002)
Petitioner: Babu Ram Sharma
Respondent: State of U.P. & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 899 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1633 of 2002)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1633 of 2002)
Judges: M.B. Shah & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 09, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 482, 200 – Quashing – Summoning order – Ground of not examining all material witnesses – However, all necessary witnesses examined. Held that order of quashing not sustainable. Appeal allowed. Rosy’s case (JT 2000 (1) SC 84) relied upon. (Paras 6, 7)
Cases Reffered:
1. Rosy & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Others (JT 2000 (1) SC 84) (Para 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. By order dated 30.1.2001, IIIrd judicial magistrate, Meerut issued summons for the offences punishable under sections 323/34, 324/34, 307/34 and 506 IPC, in complaint no. 1406 of 2000. Against that order, respondent nos. 2 and 3 preferred criminal revision no. 154 of 2001 before the sessions judge, Meerut. After considering the evidence which was recorded in the inquiry under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, the 7th additional. district judge, Meerut arrived at the conclusion that on the basis of available evidence on record, the trial court rightly exercised its jurisdiction in summoning the accused. Hence, revision application was dismissed by judgment and order dated 25.1.2002.
4. Against that order, criminal misc. writ petition no. 830 of 2002 was preferred before the High Court and the High Court set aside the order passed by the magistrate issuing summons against respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC on the ground that magistrate had examined only two witnesses along with the complainant and has passed the order summoning the accused and, therefore, it was violative of section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that complainant is relying upon the evidence of the witnesses who were examined by the magistrate during inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C.
6. In the present case, it has been pointed out by the appellant that he has examined all the relevant witnesses including eye-witnesses, police constable, who took him to the hospital for examination of the injuries and the medical officer who examined him and, therefore, there was no question of not examining the relevant witnesses.
7. In this view of the facts and judgment rendered by this Court in Rosy & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Others1, the impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the issuance of summons cannot be sustained.
8. In the result this appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. Judicial magistrate, Meerut to follow the further procedure prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. By order dated 30.1.2001, IIIrd judicial magistrate, Meerut issued summons for the offences punishable under sections 323/34, 324/34, 307/34 and 506 IPC, in complaint no. 1406 of 2000. Against that order, respondent nos. 2 and 3 preferred criminal revision no. 154 of 2001 before the sessions judge, Meerut. After considering the evidence which was recorded in the inquiry under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, the 7th additional. district judge, Meerut arrived at the conclusion that on the basis of available evidence on record, the trial court rightly exercised its jurisdiction in summoning the accused. Hence, revision application was dismissed by judgment and order dated 25.1.2002.
4. Against that order, criminal misc. writ petition no. 830 of 2002 was preferred before the High Court and the High Court set aside the order passed by the magistrate issuing summons against respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC on the ground that magistrate had examined only two witnesses along with the complainant and has passed the order summoning the accused and, therefore, it was violative of section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that complainant is relying upon the evidence of the witnesses who were examined by the magistrate during inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C.
6. In the present case, it has been pointed out by the appellant that he has examined all the relevant witnesses including eye-witnesses, police constable, who took him to the hospital for examination of the injuries and the medical officer who examined him and, therefore, there was no question of not examining the relevant witnesses.
7. In this view of the facts and judgment rendered by this Court in Rosy & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Others1, the impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the issuance of summons cannot be sustained.
8. In the result this appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. Judicial magistrate, Meerut to follow the further procedure prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code.
