LAWS(ALL)-2014-6-17

INDRADEV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On June 23, 2014
INDRADEV Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed assailing the validity of the Judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in criminal Revision No.443 of 2013 (Shyama Charan and others vs. State of U.P.), Police Station-Devraniya, District-Bareilly whereby the lower revisional court has set aside the initial summoning order dated 9.5.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, Bareilly.

(2.) It appears that on an application moved by the revisionist-complainant u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., a criminal case was registered against accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4. The allegations were to the effect that while the revisionist was returning back to his house from the market along with his brother Jaswant, accused-respondent Shyama Charan intercepted him and after stopping and holding his bicycle hurled abuses. Co-accused Brij Lal and Nukta Prasad too arrived and abused him. It was also alleged that the revisionist was beaten by hockey, causing injuries to him. His ear got torn and the teeth were also hurt. Certain witnesses arrived at the place of occurrence and it was alleged that the accused, thereafter, left him in a precariously grave and injured condition. It was also alleged in the application that Rs.1920/- which were in his pocket were also snatched away from him. Aforesaid application also contains the fact that the revisionist-complainant was medically examined by the doctor. But it appears that after investigation into the case, final report was submitted. It further transpires that aggrieved by the submission of the aforesaid final report, the revisionist-complainant appeared before the court of Magistrate and filed his protest petition. The same was treated as a complaint by the court of Magistrate. Thereafter, the regular procedure of complaint case was followed by the court as has been provided under Criminal Procedure Code. Statements u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the court and on the basis of the material produced on behalf of the revisionist-complainant the Magistrate deemed it fit to summon the accused u/s 392 I.P.C. in order to face the trial.

(3.) It seems that aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order dated 9.5.2013 passed by the Magistrate, the accused filed a revision in the court of sessions. A bare perusal of the order passed by the lower revisional court reveals that the accused-respondent did not present themselves before the court and therefore on the basis of the record the court of revision proceeded with the matter and allowed the revision. The summoning order dated 9.5.2013 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the court of Magistrate for reconsideration as in the view of the court there was no allegation of loot in the application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and also because the court found that the summoning order did not make it explicit as to which movable property was looted.