The Allahabad High Court, in its recent Judgment, has held that the Trial Courts should not to Insist on presence of Complainant at the stage of service of summons and warrants.
Brief Facts of the case Rajbahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Ors
The complainant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad and complained that the private respondent had committed an offence under Section 379, 504 and 505 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
His statement was recorded, and the Court summoned the accused. The accused chose not to appear before the Court but filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 5.2.2018. A non-bailable warrant was also issued against the accused, and the Learned Judge approached the higher authorities to get the accused before the Court.
However, the complainant-advocate fell sick, and the learned Judge dismissed his complaint. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant moved Allahabad High Court.
The Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted the fact that the private respondent did not appear before the Court even though the summons were issued against him and he was aware of the summons as well. It was also noted that even after the dismissal of the revision challenging the summons, the respondent did not not to appear before the Court.
It was observed that even though the Magistrate wrote a letter to High ranking Police officials in order to get the accused before the Court, no action was taken.
While considering the order dated 13.8.2018 passed by the Magistrate that even though the accused was dodging the summons, no action was taken against, but the complaint was dismissed instead. The Court opined that the dismissal order passed under Section 204 (4) by the trial court judge was bad in law as the Court summons was already sent, and there was no need to pay any more court fees. The Court opined that this order should be quashed.
The Court also mentioned that “The accused is protected by Superintendent of Police, Moradabad as after notice, no action is taken by him. The revision filed by the accused was also dismissed on 5.2.2018. All these factual aspects ought to have been taken care of by the Magistrate. At the stage of seeking the presence of the accused, the presence of the complainant was not at all necessary. “
Order of the Court
The revision petition was allowed, and the order of the trial court Judge was set aside. The Court directed that as the trial was in the summoning stage, the presence of the complainant should be exempted.
Further the Allahabad High Court also directed that this judgment be circulated to the Trial Court Judge not to insist for the presence of the complainant at the stage of service of summons/warrants and/as their presence would not be required for any adjudicatory purpose.
The Court stated that the accused should be present in the hearings from now even if non-bailable warrants need to be issued. The warrant will be served through the Superintendent of Police.
Case Details:-
Title: Rajbahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Ors
Case No. CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. – 411 of 2020
Date of Order: 22.09.2020
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Dr Kaushal Jayendra
Advocates :- Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Mishra ; Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A
Download Law Trend App
