Navnit Kumar Narang And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

This Criminal Revision has been filed by the revisionists with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 20.5.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haveli, district Farrukhabad passed in complaint case no. 562 of 2013 (Yatindra Dutt Shukla Vs. Navnit Kumar Narang and others), under Sections 364, 511, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad, district Farrukhabad.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

Submission of learned counsel appearing for the revisionists is that earlier summoning order was challenged by the revisionists before this Court through Application U/S 482 No. 6616 of 2006 and this Court disposed of the application on 16.11.2017 extending liberty to the applicants to move discharge application before the court concerned within one month. It is also argued that revisionists have moved discharge application within the time provided by this Court but the same was rejected on insufficient ground vide order dated 20.5.2019 by the concerned Magistrate. It appears improbable and unbelievable that revisionists who are residents of State of Uttarakhand would come to district Farrukhabad, State of U. P. to commit the present offence. It is further argued that litigation between the parties are pending in the State of Uttarakhand. All the facts were raised before the Magistrate concerned but he did not consider the same. Earlier summoning order passed in another complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 was challenged before this Court and same was quashed. Referring to the entire evidence, it is further argued that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case is abuse of process of law. Thus prayer was made to allow and admit the revision.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

In this matter, as is evident from the record, except liberty for moving discharge application at appropriate stage no other relief was granted by this Court in the aforesaid Application U/S 482 No. 6616 of 2006. Concerned Magistrate while passing the order dated 20.5.2019 was of the view that "on a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as statement recorded on the complaint a prima facie case is made out. No new evidence has come on the record to review the summoning order." If the finding recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned order is taken into consideration, no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found. Since no evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. has come on the record, Trial Court while passing the impugned order has not committed any illegality. Grounds taken in the memo of revision are not sufficient to admit and allow the revision.

The revision is dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionists prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the revisionists.

Hence, it is directed that in case the revisionists surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the revisionists. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the revisionists for surrender before the court concerned.

Order Date :- 13.8.2019 Sachdeva