Skip to content


Smt. Anisa and anr. Vs. Banne Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1982CriLJ1270
AppellantSmt. Anisa and anr.
RespondentBanne Khan
Cases Referred and Babu Ram v. State of U. P.
Excerpt:
- - the accused persons are of bad character......hind talkies, and only rubina and the mother of the complainant were at the house, the aforesaid accused persons misrepresented that they had obtained permission from the complainant for the ruksat of rubina and complainant told that she may go and so they desired to take her and believing upon the false representations made by the accused persons rubina's rukhsat was secured and she accompanied the accused persons along with ornaments mentioned in the complaint. it was stated that thereafter any trace of rubina was not found. the complainant visited the house of the accused persons. the accused persons are of bad character. they will use rubina for carrying trade in skin or sell her. she will be tortured and rubina's life and honour will net be saved. the magistrate after recording.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M. Wahajuddin, J.

1. This is an application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 499 of 1979(Banne Khan v. Shahjahan and Anr.) pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, be quashed.

2. It would appear that one Banne Khan filed a complaint against applicant Smt. Anisa and one Shahjahan Under Sections 362, 364, 498 & 417, 420, IPC claiming that Rubina is his wife and on 15-12-1979 while he was on duty as an employee at New Hind Talkies, and only Rubina and the mother of the complainant were at the house, the aforesaid accused persons misrepresented that they had obtained permission from the complainant for the Ruksat of Rubina and complainant told that she may go and so they desired to take her and believing upon the false representations made by the accused persons Rubina's Rukhsat was secured and she accompanied the accused persons along with ornaments mentioned in the complaint. It was stated that thereafter any trace of Rubina was not found. The complainant visited the house of the accused persons. The accused persons are of bad character. They will use Rubina for carrying trade in skin or sell her. She will be tortured and Rubina's life and honour will net be saved. The Magistrate after recording the evidence Under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. passed the order dated 16-1-1980, quoted in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 25th Oct., 80 filed on behalf of the applicant. Only Smt. Anisa filed this application. It was submitted that second accused person is dead. That however, is a matter to be enquired into by the Magistrate and I do not express any opinion.

3. Firstly it is submitted that the Magistrate could not have summoned the accused persons. So far as that submission goes the complaint discloses certain offences. Statements Under Sections 200 j and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Those statements are not annexed. I do not find that prima facie any case is disclosed by the complaint.

4. The next submission made is that in this case one of the offences for which accused persons have been summoned is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, that is, offence Under Section 364 I.P.C.. hence without recording the entire statements, any order summoning accused persons could not have been passed. I fully agree with such submission. Section 202(2) expressly provides that for. offences triable exclusively by Court of Session accused persons should be summoned only when the Magistrate has called the complainant to produce all witnesses and examined them on oath. The mandatory provisions of Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. have been contravened in this case because all the witnesses have not been examined. Once the Magistrate has summoned accused persons Under Section 364 as wall which is an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session he was bound by law to follow the procedure laid down Under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. and such mandatory provisions have been contravened. The order dated 16-1-1980 of the Special Judi-cial Magistrate summoning the accused persons under different sections including Under Section 364 I- P. C. cannot stand and that order has to be quashed. The proper course, therefore is to send back the case to the lower court for compliance of the provisions contained in S- 202(2) Cr.P.C. If the accused persons are to be summoned under any sections, offence under which is triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, they cannot be summoned unless all the witnesses desired to be produced are examined and it is also recorded that the complainant does not want to produce I any other witnesses. I may in the end also observe that as the case is being sent back to the Magistrate's court again, quashing the summoning order dated 16-1-1980 it would be open to the Magistrate to examine afresh whether at all there is any prima facie case and evidence to summon the accused persons Under Section 364 I- P- C. which is an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session or any such section the offence under which is so exclusively triable or not. Similar view concerning implication for non-compliance of Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. has been taken in the case of Ramesh v. State (1978 All Cri C 152 :1978 Cri LJ 626) and Babu Ram v. State of U. P. (1978 All Cri C 260 :1978 Cri LJ 1430).

5. Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed to the extent that order dated 16-1-1980 of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, summoning the accused persons Under Sections 364, 498 and 417 is quashed and the Magistrate is directed to proceed afresh from 'hat stage in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made in this judgment.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //