PANCH LAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing opposite party no.1. Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and his name is also published in the cause list but when the case is taken up in the revise call, he did not turn up.

(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 24.08.1994 as well as order dated 1.8.2006 passed by A.C.J.M.-II, Shahjahanpur, in Complaint Case No. 96/94 (Ravindra Kumar Vs. Aftab Ahmad Sachiv and others), under Section 379 , 427 , 504 IPC, P.S. Rauza, District Shahjahanpur, whereby non bailable warrant has been issued against applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for applicant invited attention of Court to summoning order dated 24.08.1994. He submits that order impugned in present application is wholly arbitrary and therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for applicant submits that Court below has simply recorded a conclusion that on the basis of allegations made in complaint, the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, prima facie an offence under sections 379 , 427 , 504 I.P.C. appears to have been committed. The said conclusion recorded by Court below is not preceded by a discussion of the allegations made in the complaint as well as the statement of complainant and his witnesses as recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. He, therefore, submits that in absence of any finding recorded by the Court below, on the basis of the averments made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant and that of the witnesses, no prima facie satisfaction was recorded by the Court below for summoning the applicant under sections 379, 427, 504 I.P.C.