# Pradeep v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 647
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-20
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 9749 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45254
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

1 All. Pradeep Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
647
order afresh in the proceeding initiated
under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. after
affording opportunity of hearing to all the
parties concerned in accordance with law.

14. The present application is allowed
subject to the observations made above.
----------
(2020)1ILR 647

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9749 of 2019
(Criminal)

Pradeep ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -
Section 204 - Summoning Order - Prima
facie case - At the stage of passing of
summoning order u/s 204 of Cr.P.C
Magistrate is not required to make
meticulous analysis of factual evidence,
rather, existence of a prima facie case is
to be seen by application of judicial mind-
Held - Summoning order was passed on
the basis of evidence, collected by the
Magistrate, in its enquiry - held no
illegality in summoning order. (Para 7)

Matter Under Article 227 dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)

1. This Application, under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed by the applicant, Pradeep, with a
prayer
for
setting
aside
impugned
summoning order, dated 29.6.2018, passed
by
the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Ist, Saharanpur, as well as
order
of
revisional
court,
dated
19.10.2019, passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Saharapur, in Criminal Revision
No. 183 of 2018, Pradeep vs. State of U.P.
and others. Learned counsel for applicant
argued that both of the courts below, i.e.,
Trial court and the Revisional court, have
failed to appreciate facts and law placed
before them. There was inconsistency in
the statements, recorded, under Sections
200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Applicant is a
witness in a murder case, wherein,
complainant's husband is an accused. Prior
to it alleged occurrence, a criminal case,
under Section 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C.,
was also got registered upon a report of the
applicant and owing to this previous
enmity, this false implication was made
and concocted case was got lodged, but,
both of the courts below failed to
appreciate it. Hence, this Application,
invoking jurisdiction of this court of
general superintendence over subordinate
courts, conferred by Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, has been filed, with
above prayer.

2. Learned AGA, representing State
of U.P., has vehemently opposed this
Application.

3. Heard learned counsel for both
sides and gone through the record.

4. From very perusal of the
complaint, it is apparent that it was filed
by Smt. Poonam with this contention that
on 6.12.2016, at about 5.00 PM, while she
was all alone at her home and her husband,
Dhan Prakash, was away at Saharanpur
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with regard to his labour job, Pradeep,
applicant, herein, did criminal trespass in
her house. He outraged her modesty by
doing obscene act by touching her private
parts. When she protested, he assaulted her
by hands and feet and also beaten her by
leg shots and by the Batt of Tamancha
(country made pistol). Her cloths were
torn. She sustained injury. Upon rescue
call, Keshu, resident of same village and
mother of complainant, Smt. Pramod Devi,
who came there to meet her, rushed there
and saved her with great difficulty.
Subsequently, Ram Kumar, Lalit, Sudhir
and Hari Ram, family members of
accused/Opposite party, also came at the
home of the complainant. They assaulted
her
and
extended
threat
of
dire
consequences.
She
was
medically
examined on 7.12.2016, but her report was
not
got
lodged.
Magistrate
took
cognizance and registered it as a complaint
case, wherein, complainant was examined,
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and her three
witnesses, Smt. Pramod, Smt. Gandadai
and Smt. Kuntlesh, under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C. Thenafter, summoning of Pradeep,
applicant herein, was ordered by the
Magistrate, for offences, punishable, under
Sections 323, 452 and 506 of IPC. Against
this summoning order, a revision, being
Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2018, was
filed, which was dismissed.

5. Statements, recorded, under
enquiry made by the Magistrate, are fully
intact and alleged contentions of the
complaint are very well in it.

6. At the stage of passing of
summoning order, under Section 204 of
Cr.P.C., Magistrate is not required to make
meticulous analysis of factual evidence,
rather, existence of a prima facie case is to
be seen by application of judicial mind and
in present case, it was very well there.
Accordingly,
summoning
order
was
passed in accordance with provisions of
law.

7. Revisional court was to see as to
whether the Magistrate failed to appreciate
facts and, thereby exceeded or misexercised his jurisdiction or if there is any
apparent error on the face of record and in
present case, in the impugned order, there
was no such situation because the order
was passed on the basis of evidence,
collected by the Magistrate, in its enquiry
and as such revision was rightly dismissed
in accordance with provisions of law.

8. Hence, in view of what has been
discussed above, there was no failure by
either of the courts below, warranting
interference by this Court, in exercise of
power of general superintendence over
subordinate courts, conferred upon it,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

9. Accordingly, this Application
merits its dismissal and it stands dismissed
as such.
----------
(2020)1ILR 648

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4317 of 1998

Prof. Onkar Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Arun Prakash, Sri Vikram D. Chauhan