GEETA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate representing opposite party no.1.

(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging summoning order dated 30.10.2019 passed by Additional Special Judge (SC/ST) (P.A.) Act, Jaunpur in Complaint Case No.286 of 2017 (Golhai Vs. Suresh Singh and others) under Sections 323/34, 504, 506, 379/34, 435/34 IPC and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act read with section 34 IPC, P.S. Baksha, District Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants invited the attention of the Court to the summoning order dated 30.10.2019. He submits that the order impugned in the present application is wholly arbitrary and therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court below has simply recorded a conclusion that on the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, prima facie an offence under Sections 323/34, 504, 506, 379/34, 435/34 IPC and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act read with section 34 IPC appears to have been committed. The said conclusion recorded by the Court below is not preceded by a discussion of the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the 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 Sections323/34, 504, 506, 379/34, 435/34 IPC and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act read with section 34 IPC. As such, no eqnuiry was committed by the Magistrate before passing the impugned summoning order dated 30.10.2019.