Court No. - 18 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 3755 of 2010 Petitioner :- Guru And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy. (Home) Lko.And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Amit K.Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for opposite
party no. 1.
Notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the
order dated 27.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,
Unnao, in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2010, dismissing the revision filed
against the summoning order dated 31.10.2009 of the Magistrate.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that an F.I.R. was
lodged with the police with the allegation of commission of certain offence
and the police after making the investigation, filed the final report. Against
the final report the complainant, opposite party no. 2, filed protest petition,
which was treated as a complaint and the Magistrate after recording
statements under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the petitioners for
trial under sections 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and petitioner no. 3 Diwakar was
also summoned for trial under section 392 I.P.C. Against the said
summoning order dated 31.10.2009, a revision was filed before the Sessions
Court which has been dismissed by the order impugned. It has been
contended that as there was previous enmity between the families of the
petitioners and the complainant, the prosecution has been instituted with
malafide intention to harass the petitioners. Certain documents and
statements have been pointed out in support of this contention.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case,
it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the
submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which
cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
As the impugned order does not appear to be suffering with any illegality
which could warrant the interference of this Court in this writ petition, the
prayer for quashing the same is accordingly refused.
It is, however, directed that in case the petitioners appear within fifteen days
from today and move application for bail, the same shall be considered by the
court below in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported
in 2009 (2) SCC (Cri) page 330.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :-30.6.2010
Rizvi