BANDANA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision has been filed against order dated 20 -05 -2004 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, in Criminal case no. 3001/ 2004 Smt. Bandana Srivastava versus Rajesh Kumar and Others.

(2.) AFTER receiving evidences under section 200 and 202 CrPC from the complainant/ revisionist, the Court below had passed summoning order dated 20 -05 -2004 by which out of five accused named in complaint only three accused were summoned for offences u/ss 498 -A, 323, 504 IPC and section 3/4 D.P.Act; and no prima facie case for summoning remaining two named accused, namely Smt. Gudiya and Km. Bandana @ Neetu (O.P. no. 2 and 3 of revision). Aggrieved by this impugned order complainant had preferred present revision with prayer to summon remaining two named persons, namely Smt. Gudiya and Km. Bandana @ Neetu (O.P. no. 2 and 3) as accused.

(3.) NONE was present from revisionist side at the time of hearing. Heard learned AGA and perused the records. Main ground mentioned in memo of revision was that evidence adduced by complainant/ revisionist make out commission of offence against all accused persons but in spite of common and similar evidences only three persons were summoned. Like other three summoned accused, remaining two persons (O.P. no. 2 and 3 of revision) should have been summoned. A perusal of record shows that Court below had considered the available evidences on merits and rightly summoned the three accused for offence under sections 498 -A, 323, 504 IPC and section 3/4 D.P.Act. Learned Magistrate after going through the evidences was not satisfied about prima facie commission of any offence by O.P. no. 2 and 3. Finding of fact reached by lower Court has been challenged in this revision. A perusal of impugned order shows that lower Court had appreciated the evidences and circumstances of the case and thereafter reached to its conclusion. There may be difference of opinion as to whether on basis of those evidences conclusion reached at by learned Magistrate is correct, or the other probability pointed out by revisionist is proper. But certainly revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for interference in impugned order merely on ground that on basis of available facts there is probability of reaching to on more conclusions other than the one reached by the trial Court. In ruling "Jagannath Choudhary and ors vs. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002 AIR(SC) 2229" Hon'ble Apex Court held : -