words per minute
7
Himani1864556
00:00
Speed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6826 of 2021
Applicant :- Sanjay Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gajala Srivastava,Manish
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Manish, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing for the State-opposite party.
2. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the summoning order dated 05.12.2020 in Complaint Case No.151 of 2019 (Ramkewal v. Sanjay), under sections 323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Kerakat, District Jaunpur, pending before Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has sought to assail the summoning order principally by contending that the statement of the complainant recorded by the Magistrate under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 is not in conformity with the allegations made in the complaint. Further, he has sought to refer to the factual aspects of the matter and the defence, which is to be set up by the applicants.
4. On a specific query as to what are the contradictions between the statement under section 200 of the Code and the complaint, apart from referring to certain factual details, counsel for the applicants has not been able to point out anything specific.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate-I points out that the statements of the witnesses, namely, PW1 and PW2 recorded before the Magistrate during the course of inquiry under section 202 of the Code contain complete particulars and fully corroborate the allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that the statement of the complainant under section 200 also cannot be said to be contradictory to the complaint version. Further contention is that upon a consideration of the material on record the offences referred to in the summoning order are made out and as such the order dated 05.12.2020, in terms of which the applicants have been summoned, cannot be said to be in any manner erroneous.
6. In order to advert to the rival contentions the provisions relating to the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate upon taking cognizance of an offence on complaint under sections 200 and 202 of the Code upto the stage of issuance of process under section 204 of the Code, are required to be referred to. The provisions contained under sections 200, 202 and 204 of the Code are being extracted below:-
"200. Examination of complainant.-- A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:
Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses--
(a) if a public servant acting or- purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192:
Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re- examine them.
202. Postponement of issue of process.--(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of