- (1.) K. N. Ojha, J. Heard Sri R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Shekhar Yadav, learned A. G. A. and have gone through the impugned order dated 15-7-2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in complaint case No. 1697 of 2002, Vedpal v. Matluk and others, by which the revisionists have been summoned to face the trial under Sections 307 and 506 I. P. C.
(2.) A perusal of the impugned order dated 15-7-2003 shows that according to complainant Vedpal he had taken land on rent from Har Karan Singh on 31-3-2003 on payment of Rs. 34,500 and had sown sugarcane crop on the land. Har Karan Singh executed sale deed of the land on 28-5-2003 in favour of the revisionists who threatened to kill complainant in case he did not part with the possession of the land. He insisted to it as he had made payment of money of the land. Therefore, the liability had passed from Har Karan Singh to revisionists and he would not part with the land. On 27-8-2001 when the complainant had gone to Hapur Mohd. Matluk was driving the scooter and the revisionists Khalid and Aslam fired causing injuries on his chest and arm. The occurrence was seen by witnesses Mahabir, Balwant Singh and others, but the accused persons were successful in making their escape good. The complaint was filed under Section 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statements of P. W. 1 Balwant Singh, P. W. 2 Manveer and P. W. 3 Dr. Ghanshyam Singh were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. In this case, the impugned order shows that not only injured, but there are other eye witnesses of the occurrence. It is broad day light occurrence. Motive is described in the impugned order. Injury has been caused by deadly weapon on vital part of the body. P. W. 3 Dr. Ghanshyam Singh was examined under Section 202 Cr. P. C. who has stated that on medical examination fire-arm injury was found on chest and arm of the victim. In such circumstances, if the learned Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that there was prima facie sufficient evidence to summon the accused persons, there does not appear any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. At the stage of summoning the accused persons it is prima facie evidence which is to be considered, the allegations are not to be proved beyond doubt. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the complaint was filed about six months after the occurrence. If a person makes effort that the case be investigated by the police and charge sheet be submitted and if he fails he is left with no option but to file complaint and it takes sometime. Thus, inordinate delay in lodging the complaint is sufficient to disbelieve the complaint case is a fact which is subject matter of consideration at the final stage or at the time the charge is framed. It may be ascertained from the statement of the witnesses or from the date when the medical examination of injured was made and other circumstances of the case, but at the time of summoning the accused a close scrutiny is not to be made. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947, Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, that while making inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. and issuing process of summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr. P. C. , the Magistrate has only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or de-merits of the case nor can the High Court go into this matter in the revisional jurisdiction which is a very limited one. Therefore, in view of this law laid down by the Apex Court and considering the circumstances of the case including the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned order.
(3.) THEREFORE, the revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Revision dismissed. .;