Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16575 of 2019 Applicant :- Dharmendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Mustafa,Afshan Shafaut Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 946 of 2017 (Usha Devi vs. Ram Milan and others), under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Itwa, District- Siddharth Nagar as well as impugned summoning order dated 06.02.2019 passed by Learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the allegations in the complaint are against five persons but the summoning order dated 06.02.2019 has been issued by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar only against the applicant. He also taken plea and reference of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mehaboob and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017(2) JIC 320 (All)(LB), which is quoted in para 18 of the affidavit filed along with the application. He submitted that the judicial magistrate has passed the said order without applying the judicious mind and without considering the entire material on record. He stated that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the present criminal proceeding is nothing but a malicious prosecution. He lastly submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate is illegal, contrary to the law established and without applying judicious mind, therefore the same may be quashed by this Court.
Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State as well as Sri Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that as per the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the witnesses said in their statement that they had seen only the applicant in commission of the offence. There are sufficient material on record for prima facie satisfaction of the court below for summoning the accused person/applicant to face the trial under Section 376 I.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicant has committed a heinous crime and the ground and pleadings taken in the instant application are not sufficient for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is devoid of merit and may be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
There are sufficient material on record for prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned to summon the applicant for trial under Section 376 I.P.C. At the stage of summoning, the court concerned is to see that whether prima facie case is made out. The arguments and the pleadings of the applicant are not sufficient for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
The application is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Pkb/