HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 37654 of 2019
Applicant :- Mohd. Aadil And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Binod Kumar Vishwakarma,Manoj Kumar Gautam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the request to quash the summoning order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nagina, District Bijnor in Complaint Case No. 1793 of 2016 (Gulsita Jahan Vs. Mohd. Aadil and others), P.S. Nagina, District Bijnor and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1793 of 2016 by which the applicant no. 1 has been summoned for the offence under Sectionsections 354 and Section506 IPC and the remaining applicants have been summoned for the offence under Sectionsection 506 IPC.
A complaint was filed by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants stating that on the day of incident at about 12’o clock in the day time, when she came out from the college, the accused persons met her and by giving allurement, took her to their home and administered her some thing intoxicated, because of which, she got unconscious. When she become conscious, she found herself on bed almost half naked and accused Adil and Sahnawaj were sitting and laughing and they also said that they had taken photo on mobile and if she say some thing to any body about the incident, they will get the photo pasted. Thereafter, threatening the victim, they got her signature on plain paper and on stamp paper. The complainant told about the incident to her family members and her father given a typed application at the Police Station Nagina, but the police did not take any action against the accused persons. The accused persons almost regularly sexually abused her. On 02.09.2016 when she was returning from her college at about 2 p.m., at the Railway crossing the accused persons met and stopped her and stated that she has been married with Adil and asked her to live in their house like a daughter-in-law. When she resisted, they assaulted her in order to deteriorate her modesty and said that the marriage deed is with them. They also abused her and threaten for a dire consequences. The complainant has alleged that, if, any marriage deed is prepared, the same is forged. At this stage, the statement of the complainant under Sectionsection 200 Cr.P.C. and under Sectionsection 202 Cr.P.C. the statement of the two witnesses were recorded which is unrebutted. On the basis of evidence on record, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order of summoning.
The learned counsel for the applicants has stated that earlier the complaint of the complainant was dismissed by the same court against which the opposite side preferred a revision and in revision the said rejection order was set aside and the learned Magistrate was directed to pass a fresh order keeping in view the evidence on record.
The power under Sectionsection 482 Cr.P.C. is a limited power which is restricted to abuse of the process of the court and it is to be exercised only when the abuse of the process of the court appears on the face of the record. The court is not required to enter into the analysis of factual matrix and evidence. The two witnesses have stated in support of the complaint and the complainant herself has supported her complaint version. The fact whether the applicant no. 1 has married to opposite party no. 2 is a question of fact and without evidence, a finding at this stage is not to be reached by this Court. The forum is open to the applicants to appear before the court below and thereafter, at the stage of framing of charges they by advancing their argument or by giving an application to that effect may request for discharge, stating that on evidence no case is being made out against them. Applicants had the remedy of filing a revision before the Sessions Judge which is also an alternative and efficacious remedy provided under law, but, that recourse has not been adopted by the applicants. It has been pointed out that applicant no. 2 to 6 are relatives and three of them are ladies and they are not supposed to commit an offence under Sectionsection 354 IPC, but, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that except applicant no. 1 the remaining applicants have been summoned for the offence under Sectionsection 506 IPC.
In view of the above, I do not find any force for intervention by invoking the authority under Sectionsection 482 Cr.P.C. and the application is liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, the application under Sectionsection 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
It is however, observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and give bail application, looking to the nature of the offence the same shall be considered sympathetically and shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law preferably on the same day.
Order Date :- 19.10.2019