ANJUL HASAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. On the application of respondent no. 2, Kallu under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C., a complaint Case No. 113/9/10 Kallu Vs. Anjul Hasan was registered in the court of learned Magistrate. The accused persons /revisionists were summoned to face trial for the offence under Sec. 323, 324, 504 & 452 IPC. Aggrieved by this order, the accused preferred this revision challenging the order of Magistrate for summoning them mainly on the ground that revisionist no. 3 Shame Alam alias Shah Alam, brother of respondent no. 1, 2 & 4 lodged an FIR against Kallu, Ekhlaq, Lallan and Ahasan and Case Crime No. 223 of 2004 under Sections 325, 504, 324, 307, 337, 427 & 506 IPC, Police Station Falawada, district Meerut was registered. As counter-blast of the same with false and frivolous allegations to avoid the result of the FIR, this false application under under Sec. 156(3) Cr. P.C., was moved. No injury report of respondent No. 2 was brought on record. No criminal history of the revisionists is there without applying of mind, learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order.

(2.) On the complaint, after recording the statement of Shahjad and Kallu under Sec. 200 and 202 Crimial P.C., and seeing the injury report of Shajad and Aas Mohmmad, learned Magistrate was of the opinion that prima- facie case against the accused persons is made out.? Learned AGA argued that from the impugned order it also reveals that as Arshad was below 18 years and there was no evidence against one and another accused so two accused persons were not summoned to face the trial . This prima facie shows that after applying its mind on the evidence available on record , learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order. No illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the impugned order has been shown on behalf of the revisionists. Apex Court in Khacheru Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1982 SCC (Crl.) 696 , held that if in a complaint case, Magistrate has passed the order of summoning the accused and Session Court as well as High Court quashed the order of summoning of the accused person, the Apex Court had set aside the order of Session Judge and High Court and held that Magistrate is quite competent to discharge or acquit the accused persons, if it finds that no offence is made out against the accused persons at appropriate time and stage of the case. Main stress of the learned counsel for the revisionists was that this case is in counter-blast of the case lodged against Kallu etc. through FIR. It is also established law as held in another case by the apex Court Nirmaljeet Vs. State, AIR 1972 SC 2639 that under Sec. 203 Criminal Procedure Code sufficient grounds does not mean sufficient grounds for conviction. Even though the accused of an offence in the complaint case has a defence the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at an appropriate stage and issue of process could not be refused.

(3.) In the present case, an FIR was lodged on behalf of the revisionists. At the most, it can be said that case brought before the learned Magistrate by application under Sec. 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code is a cross version/cross case of the case lodged on behalf of the revisionist. It is established law that both the cases should be seen by the court, and the party which is found aggressor, should be punished.