KULDEEP Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mool Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

(2.) This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging summoning order dated 02.12.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, in Complaint Case No. 1001 of 2018 (Suneeta vs. Kuldeep), under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, as well as entire proceedings ofabove mentioned complaint case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants invited the attention of the Court to the summoning order dated 02.12.2019. 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 354 and 506 I.P.C. 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 and 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 applicants under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C. As such, no eqnuiry was committed by the Magistrate before passing the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2019.