LexPRABHU DUTT TIWARI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 123 PRABHU DUTT TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 2113 of2017) DECEMBER07, 2017 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ. ] A B c Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.200 and 202 - Summoning of accused on basis of a private complaint - Appellant filed complaint against the respondents alleging offence ulss. 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B /PC - On perusal of the documents available on record, Magistrate was satisfied that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and consequently, summoned the respondents - However, the summoning order was quashed by the High Court - On appeal, held: On perusal of the order passed by the magistrate, it is clear that there has been the D required satisfaction - At the stage of summoning, the satisfaction required for the Magistrate is only to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused - Such a satisfaction for summoning an accused having been made out, the High Court went wrong in interfering with the summoning order - It was too early E for the High Court to enter a finding otherwise - Order of High Court set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.419,420,468,471 and 120- B. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. At the stage of summoning the accused on the F basis of a private complaint, all that is required is a satisfaction by the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the records made available and the evidence adduced by the complainant. [Para 4] [126-E] 2. In the present case, on perusal of the order passed by G the Magistrate, it is fairly clear that there has been the required satisfaction. The discussion by the High Court would give an indication that the Magistrate had to appreciate the evidence and then enter a finding as to whether the accused are guilty or not. At the stage of summoning, the satisfaction required for the H 123 124 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. Magistrate is only to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. Such a satisfaction for summoning an accused having been made out, the High Court went wrong in interfering with the summoning order. It was too early for the High Court to enter a finding otherwise. [Paras 5 and 6] [126-F- G] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 2113 of2017. From the Judgmem and Order dated 12.12.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5935 of c 2014. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, M. P. Singh, Prashant Kumar, Advs for the Appellant. Anupam Mishra, V. J. Francis, Harikumar V, Ms. Pooja Singh, D Advs for the Respondents. E F G H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2 The appellant is aggrieved since an order summoning the respondents was quashed by the High Court as per the impugned order. The sum1tio!"!ing order issued by the Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Court-19, Deoria reads as follows :- "Complainant appeared along with the Counsel on being called. Arguments heard and record perused. Complainant has stated that he is working in telecommunication department Varanasi and that they are three brothers and their father distributed the village land among them and all of them cultivate their land. The accused number-3 Pushpa Devi filed a case against accused number-5 Mahima, in collusion with the accused number /, 2 and 4 and he was taken to their village Nautan Bihar by threatening him where he was tortured in many different ways and they got the registered deed for the land khasra number 377 and l/91 forcibly.· The mental condition of accused number-5 is not stable and he remains disturbed and taking PRABHU DUTT TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. [KURIAN, J.] advantage of the same and all the accused by colluding them~elves, in order to cause damage to him and his brother Manoj got a false and fabricated registered deed made on 3.10.2012 by producing false papers. Police station was informed and since no action was taken by them, this case has been filed in this court. In support of the statement, the testimony of the self and the two other witnesses has been recorded under section 202 Cr. P. C. and a photocopy of the application s11b111itted to the Superintendent of Police has been produced as documentary evidence. On perusal of the documents available on record a case ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.