SUSHEEL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner Susheel Kumar Gupta who is complain ant in criminal case under Section 406/ 498-A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Pro hibition Act for quashing order dated 23-8-2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 470 of 2003 Prashant Mittal and others vs. State of Uttarandhal and others. shukla learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 to 5 and perused the record. 15. Record reveals that the learned CJM vide order dated 4-7-2002 has discussed the evidence and has taken into consideration the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr. P. C. and only thereafter the court came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons. 16. The perusal of the judgment passed by the revisional court shows that the order dated 4-7-2002 passed by CJM was set aside and at the same time the Sessions Judge vide order dated 23-8-2003 accepted the final re port submitted by the police. 17. The judgment rendered by the revisional court shows that the Learned Sessions Judge has assessed the evi dence in the revision. 18. I am of the opinion that the learned revisional court could not em bark on re-appreciation of evidence. The jurisdiction of the revisional court in the revision is restricted and its in terference could have been there only when there was a patent or gross error in the summoning order passed by the learned CJM or there was no compli ance of the mandatory provisions of law as well as there was violation of any statutory requirements. 19. I could not lay my hands that there was any flagrant miscarriage of justice which gave an occasion for in terference in the revision by the revisional court. 20. The learned revisional court on the basis of re-assessment of the evi dence has setaside the order passed by the CJM summoning respondents 2 to 5. 21. I am of the opinion that there is no glaring defect in the procedure or on the point of law leading to miscar riage of justice. The power of the revi sion is to be exercised only for correct ing injustice and not for illegality which may not go to the root of the case. 22. In the instant case, the revisional court after re-appreciation of the evidence has set aside the findings of facts of the trial court and has sub stituted its own findings which the revisional court could not. The findings of facts of the trial court could be set aside only when they were based on misreading or non-reading of evidence or misappreciation of evidence amounting perversity and could not be supported by logic. 23. The order passed by CJM on 4-7-2002 clearly indicates that the learned Magistrate after having perused the complaint and the statement of the witnesses had come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case to pro ceed against the accused persons. The learned Magistrate at the time of issu ing process was not supposed to con sider the evidence On record meticu lously. 24. 1 do not find any perversity in the order passed by the learned CJM issuing the process against respondents 2 to 5. 25. I do not find any material to show that the complaint filed by the petitioner before the court below is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, hence there is no reason for quashing the summoning order. 26. With the aforesaid reasons i come to the conclusion that the judg ment and order passed by the revisional court is liable to be quashed. The order dated 4-7-2002 passed by learned CJM summoning respondents 2 to 5 deserves to be restored. 27. The petition is allowed and the order dated 23-8-2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar is set aside, consequently the order dated 4-7-2002 passed by CJM Haridwar is hereby restored. .