English Typing Test

AFR CourtNo.-84 Case:-APPLICATIONU/S482No.-10118of2021 Applicant:-PinkalSingh@RaghvendraSinghAnd2Others OppositeParty:-StateOfU.P.AndAnother CounselforApplicant:-LalChandraMishra CounselforOppositeParty:-G.A Hon'bleDr.YogendraKumarSrivastava,J. 1.HeardSriLalChandraMishra,learnedcounselfortheapplicantsandMs.SushmaSoni,learnedAdditionalGovernmentAdvocatefortheState-oppositepartyno.1. 2.ThepresentapplicationunderSection482Cr.P.C.hasbeenfiledseekingtoquashtheentireproceedingsofComplaintCaseNo.13of2019,Ramnaresh@Nareshvs.PinkalSingh@RaghvendraSinghandothers,underSections504,506IPCand3(1)(Gha)SC/STAct,P.S.KotwaliDehat,DistrictMirzapurandalsotoquashthesummoningorderdated15.02.2021passedbytheSpecialJudge(SC/STAct),Mirzapur. 3.Learnedcounselfortheapplicantshasdrawnattentiontothecomplaintdated04.07.2018andthestatementsrecordedunderSections200and202oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,19731andhassoughtquashingofthesummoningorderandtheentireproceedingsbyreferringtothefactualaspectsofthecaseandthedefencewhichissoughttobesetuponbehalfoftheapplicants. 4.LearnedAdditionalGovernmentAdvocatesubmitsthatthecontentionwhichissoughttoberaised,wouldrequireappreciationofevidenceandenteringintothedisputedquestionsoffact,whichwouldbebeyondthescopeandpurviewofpowerstobeexercisedunderSection482oftheCodeatthisstageoftheproceedings.ItisalsopointedoutthatthestatementofthecomplainantunderSection200andofthewitnessesunderSection202havingsupportedtheallegationsmadeinthecomplaint,theorderpassedbytheMagistratedirectingissuanceofsummons,cannotbefaultedwith. 5.LearnedcounselfortheapplicantshasnotbeenabletopointoutanyinconsistencybetweentheallegationsmadeinthecomplaintandthestatementofthecomplainantrecordedunderSection200oftheCode.ThestatementsofthewitnessesrecordedunderSection202oftheCodeduringthecourseofinquirymadebytheMagistratehavealsonotbeenshowntobeinconsistentwiththeallegationsmadeinthecomplaint. 6.TheSpecialJudge(SC/STAct),Mirzapur,uponaconsiderationofthefactsstatedinthecomplaintandthestatementofthecomplainantrecordedunderSection200andalsothestatementofthewitnessesrecordedduringthecourseofinquiryunderSection202oftheCodehasdrawnaconclusionwithregardtoexistenceofaprimafaciecaseforproceedingagainsttheaccused-applicantsandaccordinglyhasdirectedissuanceofsummons. 7.TheproceduretobefollowedbytheMagistrateupontakingcognizanceofanoffenceisprovidedunderChapterXVoftheCode.TheprovisionscontainedunderSections200,202and204wouldberequiredtobeadvertedtoforthepurpose. 8.Section200providesthattheMagistratetakingcognizanceofanoffenceonacomplaintshallexamineuponoaththecomplainantandthewitnessespresent,ifany,andthatthesubstanceofsuchexaminationshallbereducedtowritingandshallbesignedbythecomplainantandthewitnesses,andalsobytheMagistrate.Theobjectofsuchexaminationiswithaviewtoascertainwhetherthereisaprimafaciecaseagainstthepersonaccusedoftheoffenceinthecomplaint,andtopreventtheissueofprocessonacomplaintwhichiseitherfalseorvexatiousorintendedonlytoharasssuchperson. 9.Theobjectofsection202istoenabletheMagistratetoformanopinionastowhethertheprocessistobeissuedornot.ThepurposeoftheinvestigationtobedirectedunderthissectionistohelptheMagistrateinarrivingatadecisionastotheissuanceofprocess.ThebroadbasedinquirybytheMagistrate,ascontemplatedunderthissection,iswithaviewtoenablehimtoarriveatadecisionastowhetherheshoulddismissthecomplaintorwhetherheshouldproceedtoissueprocessuponthecomplaint. 10.Theprovisionscontainedundersections200,202and204oftheCodeandthedegreeofsatisfactionrequiredtoberecordedatthisstagebytheMagistratewassubjectmatterofconsiderationinS.W.PalanitkarandOthersv.StateofBiharandAnother2anditwasheldthattestwhichwasrequiredtobeappliedwaswhetherthereis"sufficientgroundforproceeding"andnotwhetherthereis"sufficientgroundforconviction".ReferringtotheearlierdecisionsinthecaseofNirmaljitSinghHoonv.StateofWestBengalandAnother3,ChandraDeoSinghv.ProkashChandraBose4,andSmt.Nagawwav.VeerannaShivalingappaKonjalgiandOthers5,itwasstatedthatthescopeofinquiryundersection202islimitedonlytotheascertainmentofthetruthorfalsehoodoftheallegationsmadeinthecomplaint(i)onthematerialplacedbythecomplainantbeforethecourt;(ii)forthelimitedpurposeoffindingoutwhetheraprimafaciecaseforissueofprocesshasbeenmadeout;(iii)fordecidingthequestionpurelyfromthepointofviewofthecomplainantwithoutatalladvertingtoanydefencethattheaccusedmayhave. 11.ThesufficiencyofthematerialandthetesttobeappliedatthestageofissueofprocessagaincameupforconsiderationinthecaseofNupurTalwarv.CentralBureauofInvestigationandAnother6anditwasreiteratedthatthelimitedpurposeofconsiderationofmaterialatthestageofissuingprocessbeingtentativeasdistinguishedfromtheactualevidenceproducedduringtrial,thetesttobeappliedatthestagewaswhetherthematerialplacedbefore
0:00