SANJEEV @ SANJU MITTAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Sanjeev @ Sanju Mittal, Ashok Mittal, Prashant @ Pintu and Smt. Hemlata, with a prayer for setting aside summoning order, dated 13.2.2019, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bulandshahar, in Complaint Case No. 2526 of 2018, under Sections 406 and 506 of IPC, Police Station-Naraina, District-Bulandshahar, as well as entire criminal proceeding of above criminal complaint and order, dated 23.9.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, court no.16, Bulandshahar, in Criminal Revision No.121/2019.

(2.) Learned counsel for applicants argued that it was a case of civil nature, wherein, date of occurrence was not substantiated. It was said to be of 16.8.2018, whereas, in the statement, recorded, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the same has been said to be of 14.8.2018. Accordingly, a criminal revision was filed against summoning order, which, too was rejected. This was a malicious prosecution, under misuse of process of law. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.

(3.) From very perusal of the complaint, it is apparent that accusation of taking Rs.1.5 lakhs against agreed consideration of Rs.Two lakhs for alienation of shop, in question, by Sanjeev Mittal was there, but Sanjeev Mittal, has refused to execute a deed and return of above money. When asked for return of money, a threat of dire consequences was extended by said accused persons. This was there in the statements recorded, under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Specific date of occurrence of 16.8.2018, in the statement, recorded, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., is being said to be missing, but, in the evidence collected by the Magistrate in its enquiry, it is very well there. Hence, at the time of passing of summoning order, under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., Magistrate is not supposed to pass elaborate and reasoned order, rather, by application of judicial mind, existence of a prima facie case for summoning is to be seen and in present case it was very well there. Each of the accused have not been summoned for each offence, rather, there had been reasoning and separation of Sections for which they have been summoned. Ashok, Mintu and Hemlata have been summoned for offence, punishable, under Section 506 of IPC, whereas, Sanju Mittal, has been summoned for offences, punishable, under Sections 406 and 506 of IPC. Hence, there was neither misexercise of process of law or failure of justice nor there is any error apparent on the face of record, while passing impugned summoning order. Criminal Revision, preferred against summoning order, has also been rightly dismissed, in accordance with provisions of law.