Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, order dated 10.1.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Farrukhabad, in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2003 has been challenged.
(2.) BY the impugned order, the court below has dismissed the revision, thereby confirming the summoning order dated 20.2.2002, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, in Complaint Case No. 5036 of 2001, Smt. Rani Devi v. Vijay Prakash and others, under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506, I.P.C. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts emerging from the record, leading to the filing of this petition, in brief, are that a complaint was filed by the complainant Rani Devi w/o Vinod Kumar (respondent No. 2 herein) on 29.11.2001 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh, against the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as 'the accused'). On the basis of that Complaint Case No. 5036 of 2001 was registered. It was alleged in the said complaint that on 26.11.2001 at about 2 p.m., when the complainant was alone in her house and her husband had gone out in connection with his business affairs, the accused-persons named in the complaint entered into her house and began to abuse her. When she asked the accused-persons not to abuse her, they began to assault her by means of fists and kicks. The accused Vijay Prakash showing tamancha threatened the complainant that either you vacate the house or he would kill her. On hearing the noise of complainant, when her son Man Mohan came to save her, the accused persons began to assault him also. On hearing hue and cry, Ganesh Chandra s/o Ram Swaroop Verma, Kishan Swaroop s/o Shanti Swaroop, Mithilesh w/o Suresh Babu and Dilip Kumar s/o Kailash Nath came there who saw the entire incident and saved the complainant and her son from the accused persons. It was also alleged in the complaint that Vijay Prakash, Brijesh Raman and Ramesh Raman had fired shots from their tamanchas on the complainant on earlier occasion also, about which a case was got registered at Crime No. 465 of 1994 under Sections 323 and 307, I.P.C., in which the said accused are on bail. After recording the statement of the complainant Rani Devi under Section 200 and taking evidence under Section 202, Cr. P.C., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, summoned the accused persons for trial vide order dated 20.2.2002. That order was challenged by them in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2003, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this petition. The petition is being decided at the admission stage without issuing notice to the respondent No. 2 Smt. Rani Devi. I have heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(3.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that evidence led by the complainant in Case No. 5036 of 2001 was not sufficient to summon the accused to face the trial and hence the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, committed illegality in passing the summoning order dated 20.2.2002, which has been wrongly confirmed by the learned lower revisional court vide impugned order. IT was also submitted that false complaint was filed by the complainant with a view to harass the accused persons. On the contrary it was submitted by learned A.G.A. that interference by this Court in the impugned order will not be justified, as at the time of passing the summoning order, it is only to be seen that prima facie case to proceed against the accused is made out and at this stage, it is not to be seen whether the evidence led by the complainant is sufficient or not to base the conviction.;