- (1.) B. P. Singh, J. Ramji Lal and Six others have come in revision against the order dated 19. 12. 91 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 40 of 1991 (Jwala v. Son Pal and Six others) under Sections 147,148,323,452 IPC and Section 3 (5) (6) (10) (15) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(2.) JWALA, respondent No. 2, had filed a complaint in the court of IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh against Son Pal and Six others alleging that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 147,148,452,323/149,324/149,504 and 5061. P. C. and Section 3/4 of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Sessions Judge had recorded the statements of the witnesses produced by the complainant under Section 202 Cr. P. C. Having heard learned Counsel for the complainant and after perusing the evidence available on the record the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was sufficient ground to summon the accused persons for the offences under Sections 147,148,323,452 IPC and Sections 3 (5) (10) (15) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Aggrieved by the summoning order dated 19. 12. 91 Son Pal and others have come in revision and have contended that the order of the learned Sessions Judge was not correct. The reason given are that no report of the alleged incident was lodged with the police, that no application about the said alleged incident was moved before the S. P. that Jwala does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; that the circumstances disclosed in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr. P. C. did not disclose any offence against the applicants. It was also contended that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case in question.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the applicants I am of the view that the present application for revission has no force. The ground that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case in question was given by the Counsel for the applicant because the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh has been nominated to decide the cases as Special Court, relating to the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The applicants have been summoned by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 204 (1) of the Cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). Section 204 (1) of the Code provides that if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceedings, he may issue summons, if it is summon case, or war rant or summon if it is warrant case for the attendance of the accused. The Legislature has intentionally used the word "if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient grounds for proceedings. " The Magistrate has been given a wide discretion and has full power to summon an accused if he is of the opinion that there are sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. Of course the discretion under Section 204 (1) of the Code is to be exercised in a judicious manner keeping in mind that innocent persons are not harassed or harmed unnecessarily by unscruplus litigants. The Magistrate has to peruse the allegations contained in the complaint, the statements recorded by him under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code and the document if any, produced by the complainant. Unless the summoning order of the Magistrate is wholly perverse no interference in the said order is called for. Of course the revisional Court can interfere with a summoning order if it is shown that the order is either perverse or the entire material on the record does not make out any offence against the accused. But the revisional Court is not expected to substitute its opinion in place of the Magistrate's opinion even if two views are possible on a perusal of the entire material which was produced before the Magistrate by the complainant.;