VISHNU KHANDELWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 23.04.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case no. 1487 of 2010, captioned as Gyan Bansal vs. Vishnu Khandelwal and others, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, pending before the said Court.
(2.) A first information report was lodged by the complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) against Vishnu Khandelwal and others on 16.02.2003, at PS Rudrapur, registered as case crime no. 179A/2003, under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. According to the complainant, on 16.02.2003, at 9:20 a.m., when he was going to his friend's house, Himanshu Bansal, Gyan Bansal and 5-6 unidentified persons surrounded him and started abusing him. When the complainant refrained them from doing so, the accused persons assaulted him with kicks, fists and sticks. A golden chain and wrist watch of the complainant was snatched by the accused persons. Himanshu Bansal fired upon him with the intention of killing him but he escaped unhurt. Many a people of the locality came, intervened and thereby saved the life of the complainant. After the investigation, Final Report was submitted by the investigating officer on 16.02.2003. Protest petition was filed by the complainant. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar rejected the Final Report and summoned the accused Vishnu Khandelwal for the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC vide order dated 23.04.2010. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed.
(3.) According to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, a prima facie case against the accused for the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC was made out. Complainant Gyan Bansal supported the prosecution story in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by the investigating officer during the investigation, learned C.J.M. rejected the Final Report and summoned the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. It was within the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate to have taken cognizance of offences against the accused persons on the basis of material collected by the investigating officer during the investigation. Such cognizance was taken under Section 190 (i) (b) of Cr.P.C. It was not necessary for the learned Magistrate to have recorded the statements of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. while taking cognizance under Section 190 (i) (b) Cr.P.C. There is, therefore, no illegality in the impugned order dated 23.04.2010.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.