Sunil @ Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7156 of 2024 Applicant :- Sunil @ Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anamika Singh,Sudha Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶1Heard Ms. Anamika Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶2By means of present application the applicant has assailed the order dated 10.05.2024 passed in Session Trial No. 705 of 2022 (State vs. Phoolchandra Verma alias Phoole) by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh (in short 'trial court'), in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶3Prayer has also been made to quash the entire criminal proceedings related to Session Trial No. 705 of 2022 (State vs. Phoolchandra Verma alias Phoole), arising out of FIR No. 69 of 2022, under Section 302/504 IPC, P.S.-Patti, District-Pratapgarh, qua the applicant.

¶4By the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 passed in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been summoned to face the trial under Section 302/504 IPC, P.S.-Patti, District-Pratapgarh.

¶5Brief facts of the case are to the effect that an FIR was lodged on 05.03.2020 registered as FIR No. 0069 of 2022 under section 302/504 IPC by Deepak Kumar Verma/P.W.1 (informant). According to this FIR in nutshell, on account of financial transaction between applicant and the deceased amounting to the tune of Rs. 3,42,000/-, which according to the case of the prosecution was payable by the applicant to the deceased and on account of the same the applicant killed the deceased Manoj Kumar (brother of P.W.1). The FIR further indicates that the applicant by his mobile no. 7081569264, made a call at about 8:00 a.m. on 04.03.2022 on the mobile no. 9792410520 of the wife of the deceased, in relation to payment of Rs. 3,42,000/- and in response thereof the deceased left his house and when he did not return, the wife of the deceased made calls to her parent's house and other relatives to know the location of the deceased, which could not be traced out and thereafter the entire family tried to search the deceased and in the next morning i.e. on 5th March 2022 about 7:00 a.m. the body of the deceased was found near canal in the vicinity and thereafter the wife of the deceased called the applicant who after taking up the calls of the wife of the deceased lastly stated that he is going to Allahabad and thereafter his phone was found switched off.

¶6After the aforesaid, the Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.') carried out the investigation and during investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement(s) of Deepak Kumar/ PW1 (informant) and Renu/P.W.2 (wife of deceased). Before the Investigating Officer both these persons remain intact.

¶7The I.O. also recorded the statement(s) of other witnesses namely Kanti Devi, Malti Devi, Sarju Prasad ,Atul Verma and one Phoolchand Verma. As per these persons, an alteration took place between Phoolchand Verma and deceased and in this altercation Phool Chand Verma caused injury at abdomen of the deceased.

¶8Further the postmortem of deceased was carried out on

5.3.2022. Upon examination of the body of the deceased the Autopsy Surgeon found Abrasion on left side of neck about 3 X 5 cm, swelling all over abdomen and cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem internal organ injury due to mucosa congested. The viscera was preserved for chemical analysis.

¶9Thereafter, the statement of Autopsy Surgeon was also recorded, who supported his opinion indicated in the postmortem report.

¶10It would be apt to indicate that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Phoolchand Verma.

¶11After submission of the chart-sheet dated 15.04.2022, the case was committed to court of Sessions, where the case was registered as S.T. No. 705 of 2022 (State versus Phool Chand Verma alias Phule).

¶12Thereafter, the trial court taking note of the evidence collected during investigation framed the charges against the accused Phool Chand Verma under section 302 IPC.

¶13To establish the case, prosecution produced/examined Deepak Verma (P.W.1)/brother of the deceased, and Renu(P.W.2)/wife of deceased. Deepak Verma(P.W.1) and Renu(P.W.2) were examined and thereafter were cross examined by the defence.

¶14P.W.1 and P.W. 2 remain intact and they supported the basic story of the prosecution indicated in the FIR, as appears from the copy of the statement(s) placed on record as Annexure number 13.

¶15In cross examination, on being asked by the defence counsel, wife of deceased/P.W.2 stated that she does not know Phool Chand Verma and she has reasons to believe that applicant has killed her husband.

¶16In the same tune P.W.1 has also supported the story of the prosecution and reiterated the story of prosecution.

¶17The statement of P.W.1, as available on record, is extracted hereinunder:- "fnukad 07-04-23 xokg&nhid dqekj iq= jke y[ku mez 28 o"kZ is'kk d`f"k fuoklh galkiV~Vh Fkkuk iV~Vh ftyk izrkix<+ us l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd e`rd eukst dqekj esjs cM+s HkkbZ Fks og VkbYl ekcZy dh Bsdsnkjh dk dk;Z fouksn dqekj mQZ lquhy dqekj fuoklh ijln Fkkuk vkliqj nsoljk ds lkFk djrs Fks fnukad 04-03-2022 dks le; lqcg yxHkx 8-00 cts esjh HkkHkh jsuw iRuh eukst dqekj ds eksckby uEcj ij fouksn dqekj mQZ lquhy dqekj us Qksu djds vius ?kj ij eukst dqekj dks ;g dgdj cqyk;k fd vkvks vkSj iqjkuk fglkc rhu yk[k pkfyl gtkj ys tkvksa vkSj ,d u;s ? kj dh fMtkbu dk dk;Z djuk gS esjs HkkbZ eukst vkSj fouksn ls iSls ls ysu nsu ds lEcU/k es dqN fnu igys ls fookn py jgk Fkk iSls nsus dh ckr ij esjs HkkbZ eukst fouksn ds ?kj x;sA 'kke rd ?kj okil u vkus ij esjh HkkHkh jsuw us fouksn dks eksckby ij Qksu djds iwaNk dh vkids ifr eukst 'kke 4-00 cts gels iSlk ysdj viuh llqjky ckjMhg x;s gS bruk lquus ds ckn esjh HkkHkh us vius ek;ds ckjMhg Qksu djds ek;ds okyks ls tkudkjh fd;k rks ek;ds okyksa us esjh HkkHkh dks crk;k fd eukst ;gka ugh vk;s gq, gS blds ckn eS vius ifjtu ds lkFk vius HkkbZ eukst dh ryk'k fj'rsnkj ds ;gka o vU; LFkkuksa ij djus yxk fdUrq dksbZ irk ugh pyk eS vius HkkbZ dh jkf= Hkj ryk'k fd;k fdUrq ugh feys nwljs fnu fnukad 05-03-2022 dks lqcg yxHkx 7-00 cts eksckby ds ek/;e ls irk pyk fd esjs HkkbZ eukst dk 'ko Hkjks[ku ugj ds ikl xsgw ds [ksr es gS yk'k feyus dh tkudkjh gksus ds ckn esjh HkkHkh jsuw us fouksn dks Qksu djds ?kVuk ds ckjs es voxr djk;k fouksn us crk;k fd eS tkudkjh djds crkrk gwaA mlds ckn esjh eka jkt dqekjh us fouksn mQZ lquhy ds ikl Qksu djds iwaNk rks mlus crk;k fd eS bl le; ca/kok cktkj es gwaA vkSj ?kVukLFky ij tkdj ns[k djds vki dks crkrk gwaA fdUrq fouksn us dkQh nsj rd dksbZ tkudkjh esjh eka dks ugh fn;k iqu% esjh eka us fouksn ds eksckby ij iqu% Qksu fd;k rks fouksn us eksckby ij iqu% Qksu fd;k rks fouksn us crk;k fd eSa bykgkckn tk jgk gwa blds ckn fouksn ls fQj lEidZ djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k rc mudk eksckby cUn crkus yxk fQj tkudkjh dh x;h rc irk pyk fd esjk HkkbZ fnukad 04-03-22 dks jkf= yxHkx 8-00 cts rd fouksn ds ?kj ij gh Fkk fouksn dk esjs HkkbZ eukst ls iSls ds ysunsu dks ysdj yxHkx 4&5 lky ls fookn py jgk gS esjh HkkHkh jsuw o esjh esjh eka tc tc Qksu ls fouksn ls ckr dj jgh Fkh esjs HkkbZ ds ckjs es tkudkjh dj jgh Fkh rc muds lkFk es Hkh ekStwn Fkk ckr djrs esus lquk esjh eka vkSj HkkHkh us eq>s crk;k eq>s iwjk fo'okl gS fd esjs HkkbZ dh gR;k iSls ds ysu nsu dks ysdj py jgs fookn ds dkj.k fouksn dqekj mQZ lquhy dqekj us dh gSA fouksn dk eksckby tc cUn gks x;k rks ge vius ifjtuksa ds lkFk Hkjks[ku ugj ds ikl xsgw ds [ksr es x;k tgka esjs HkkbZ eukst dk 'ko iM+k gqvk Fkk 'ko dks ns[kk vkSj igpku fd;k 'ko esjs HkkbZ eukst dk gS xkao okyksa dh lwpuk ij ge yksxks ds igqapus ls igys ?kVuk ij iqfyl igqap pqdh Fkh blds ckn eS Fkkuk iV~Vh x;k tgka eSus Lo;a ,d rgjhj fy[kdj ml ij vius gLrk{kj cukdj Fkkus ij fn;k i=koyh es 'kkfey dkxt la[;k 3v@3 dks ns[kdj lk{kh us dgk ;g ogh rgjhj gS tks eSus fy[kdj Fkkus ij fn;k Fkk ftl ij esjs gLrk{kj gS eS vius gLrk{kj dh iqf"V djrk gwa ftl ij izn'kZ d&1 Mkyk x;kA blds ckn eS ?kVukLFky ij vk;k tgka eqdkeh iqfyl }kjk esjs o ekStwn yksxks es ls iapku fu;qfDr dj 'ko ds iapk;rukek dh dk;Zokgh dh fy[kk i<+h esjs lkeus dh x;h i=koyh es 'kkfey dkxt la[;k 8v@1] 8v@2] iapk;rukek dh dk;Zokgh ns[kdj lk{kh us dgk iapk;rukek dh fy[kk i<+h esjs lkeus gq;h FkhA ftl ij esjs gLrk{kj gS eS vius gLrk{kj dh iqf"V djrk gwaA ?kVuk ds lEcU/k es foospd us esjk c;ku fy;k Fkk tks ns[kk Fkk og crk;k FkkA c;ku esjs cksyus ij is'kdkj }kjk [kqys U;k;ky; es fy[kk x;kA 'ks"k ftjg fnukad 07-04-23 ls vkxs& fnukad 10-08-2023 xokg& nhid dqekj iq= jkey[ku us iqu% l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd tks ,Q vkb vkj eSus Fkkus ij fy[kok;k Fkk og lgh fy[kok;k Fkk e`rd eukst dqekj galkiV~Vh dk jgus okys Fks vkSj esjs HkkbZ FksA uketn vfHk;qDr fouksn dqekj mQZ lquhy dqekj oekZ ijln dk jgus okyk Fkk ijln vkSj dalkiV~Vh es 20&25 fdehti dk vUrj gSA e`rd eukst esjs HkkbZ dk yk'k Hkjks[ku ugj ds ikl xsgw ds [ksr es feyh Fkh tgka yk'k feyh Fkh og lhu ijln ls 4&5 fdehti nwj gSA esjs e`rd HkkbZ dh yk'k Hkjks[ku ugj ds ikl xsgwa ds [ksr es gksus dh lwpuk lcls igys esjs xkao ds panu i=dkj us fn;k Fkk blds ckn ge yksxks us vius ?kj vkdj ?kVuk ds ckjs es lcdks crk;k vkSj ?kVuk dh lwpuk fouksn dqekj mQZ lquhy ls Qksu djds iwaNk D;ksfd esjs HkkbZ e`rd eukst dqekj fouksn ds lkFk gh x;k Fkk] iwaNus ij fouksn dqekj us dksbZ lgh ckr ugh crk;k D;ksfd esjk HkkbZ eukst dqekj fouksn ds ?kj ij mlds cqykus ij cdk;k iSlk ysus x;k FkkA fouksn dqekj mQZ lquhy dk tks vkpj.k Fkk mls izdV gks jgk Fkk fd esjs HkkbZ dh gR;k iSls ds ysunsu dks ysdj vkSj iSlk okil u djuk iM+s bl dkj.k 'kjkc fiykdj djk fn;kA c;ku esjs cksyus ij is'kdkj }kjk [kqys U;k;ky; es fy[kk x;kA "

¶18The statement of P.W.2, as available on record, is extracted hereinunder:- "fnukad 12-10-23& xokg& Jherh jsuw nsoh iRuh Loti eukst dqekj mez 22 o"kZ is'kk x`g.kh fuoklh dYlkiV~Vh Fkkuk iV~Vh ftyk izrkix<+ us l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd esjh 'kknh eukst dqekj ds lkFk fnukad 20-06-2017 dks gq;h Fkh esjs ifr eukst] fouksn mQZ lquhy dqekj ds lkFk VkbYl yxkus o Bsdsnkjh dk dk;Z djrs FksA esjs ?kj lquhy dqekj oekZ dk vkuk tkuk Hkh FkkA dHkh dHkh lquhy oekZ jkf= es esjs ?kj :drs Fks vkSj [kkuk Hkh [kkrs Fks eS mudks c[kwch tkurh igpkurh gwaA esjs ifr dk lquhy oekZ ls rhu yk[k c;kfyl gtkj dk ysus nsus dk fookn pkj ikap lky ls py jgk Fkk iSls ds ysu nsu dh ckr esjs ifr us eq>s crk;k Fkk vkSj esjs lkeus Hkh esjs ifr vkSj lquhy dqekj ds chp iSls ds ysu nsu dh ckrphr gq;h Fkh mlh iSls ds ysu nsu dks ysdj lquhy dqekj oekZ us esjs ifr dks fnukad 04-03-22 dks cqyk;k Fkk lqcg 8-00 cts esjs eksckby uEcj ij fouksn dqekj mQZ lquhy oekZ us vius eksckby ls Qksu djds esjs ifr dks ;g dgdj cqyk;k fd mudks esjs ?kj Hkst nhft, vkSj viuk iqjkuk cdk;k iSlk ys tk;s vkSj ,d u;s ?kj dh fMtkbu dk dk;Z Hkh djuk gS bl ckr dks lqudj eSus viuk eksckby vius ifr dks ns fn;k dh lquhy oekZ dk Qksu vk;k gS ckrphr dj yhft, esjs lkeus esjs ifr us mDr eksckby ls mDr iSls ds ysunsu o dk;Z dh ckrphr dh blh ckr dks ysdj esjs ifr eq>ls ;g crkdj fd eS lquhy oekZ ds ? kj iqjkuk cdk;k iSlk ysus o u;s edku dk dk;Z feyk gS mls ns[kus tk jgk gwa tc esjs ifr 'kke 4-00 cts rd okil ugh vk;s rks eSus lquhy oekZ dks Qksu djds iwaNk rks mUgksus eq>s crk;k fd vkids ifr eukst eq>ls iSlk ysdj 4-00 cts 'kke dks viuh llqjky ckjMhg pys x;s gS blds ckn eSus vius ek;ds viuh HkkHkh dks Qksu djds vius ifr ds ckjs esa tkudkjh fd;k rc esjh HkkHkh us crk;k fd vkids ifr eukst ;gka ugh vk;s gq;s gSA rc eSus vius vU; fj'rsnkjksa ds ;gka Qksu djds irk fd;k fdUrq dgh irk ugh pyk nwljs fnu 05-03-22 dks lqcg 7-00 cts yxHkx eksckby ds ek/;e ls irk pyk fd Hkjks[ku ugj ds ikl xsgw ds [ksr es eukst dk 'ko iMk gqvk gS fQj es bl tkudkjh ds ckn eSus iqu% lquhy dqekj dks Qksu fd;k vkSj mDr ?kVuk ds ckjs es crk;k rks mUgksus eq>ls dgk fd irk djds crk jgk gwa fQj dqN nsj ckn eSus nqckjk lquhy dqekj dks Qksu fd;k mUgksus crk;k fd eS ca/kok cktkj es gwa vk jgk gwaA dqN nsj bUrtkj djus ds ckn eSus rhljh ckj fouksn dks Qksu fd;k rks lquhy mQZ fouksn us crk;k fd eS bykgkckn tk jgk gwa vkSj viuk eksckby cUn dj fy;k fQj esjs ifjokjhtu ?kVukLFky Hkjks[ku ugj ds ikl x;s 'ko dh igpku dj 'ko dks ?kj ys vk;s og 'ko eSus ns[kk ns[kk fd og 'ko esjs ifr eukst dqekj dk FkkA eq>s iwjk fo'okl gS fd lquhy dqekj mQZ fouksn us esjs ifr dk gR;k dj 'ko dks Hkjks[ku ugj ds ikl Qsd fn;k ;g gR;k iSls ds ysunsu dks ysdj lquhy mQZ fouksn }kjk dh x;h ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa foospd us esjk c;ku fy;k FkkA esjs nsoj nhid dqekj ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa Fkkuk iV~Vh es eqdnek fy[kok;k FkkA ftjg vfHk;qDr ds vf/koDrk }kjk& fouksn mQZ lquhy dk Qksu esjs eksckby ij esjs lkeus vk;k Fkk mDr Qksu ls eSus o esjs ifr us ckrphr dh Fkh ckrphr djus ds ckn esjs ifr us crk;k fd fouksn mQZ lquhy oekZ vkt iSlk nsus ds fy, eq>s cqyk jgs gS eS tk jgk gwa ogka igqapus ds ckn esjs ifr us Qksu djds crk;k dh eS igqap x;k gwa eq>sa esjs ifr us Qksu djds ;g ugh crk;k Fkk fd fouksn us eq>s iSlk ns fn;k gS tcfd fouksn us ;g crk;k fd eSus iSlk vkids ifr dks ns fn;k gSA blds ckn esjh esjs ifr ls dksbZ ckrphr ugh gqbZA eq>s ;g tkudkjh gS fd bl eqdnesa esa QwypUnz oekZ mQZ Qqys dks vfHk;qDr cuk;k x;k gS eS QwypUnz oekZ dks ugh tkurh igpkurh gwaA esjh dHkh eqykdkr ugh gq;h gS eq>s iwjk fo'okl gS fd esjs ifr dh gR;k fouksn dqekj mQZ lquhy dqekj oekZ us fd;k gSA c;ku esjs cksyus ij is'kdkj }kjk [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk x;kA"

¶19After recording the statement(s) P.W.1 and P.W.2, an application i.e. Application No. 15 ka 11 under Section 319 CrP.C was preferred by D.G.C. Criminal.

¶20The trial court, thereafter on the said application, passed the order under challenged dated 10.05.2024 and from perusal of the order under challenge dated 10.05.2024, it is apparent that trial court considered the contents of the FIR and the statements of witnesses namely Deepak Kumar Verma(P.W.1) and Renu(P.W.2) and by this order dated 10.05.2024, the trial court has directed the applicant to face the trial under section 302/504 IPC.

¶21In the aforesaid background of the case the present application has been filled.

¶22The applicant has impeached the order dated 10.05.2024 on following facts and grounds, as appears from the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as also the averments made in the present application:-

(i) During investigation the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the eye witnesses as also of Phool Chand Verma, according to which the abdomen injury was caused by Phool Chand Verma and the I.O. thereafter filed the charge-sheet against Phool Chand Verma and the trial court while passing the order dated 10.05.2024 did not consider these statements and as such committed material illagility.

(ii) The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of Autopsy Surgeon and according to the same, Manoj Kumar, the deceased, expired due to abdomen injury and according to eye witnesses Phool Chand Verma caused injury on the abdomen of deceased;

(iii) The P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not the witnesses of last seen and as such their testimony is not reliable testimony and based upon the same the applicant ought not to have been summoned to face the trial;

(iv) The trial court in exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the facts of the case erred in facts and law both;

¶23Learned counsel for the applicant in support of her submissions has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(i) Manjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others

(2021) 18 SCC 321;

(ii) Suraj Mal vs. The State (Delhi Administration) 1979 CRI. L.J. 1087;

(iii) Mahmood Ali and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950;

(iv) Criminal Appeal No. 3172 of 2023 (Aarif & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Another);

(v) Shankar vs. State of U.P., AIRONLINE 2024 SC

300.

¶24Learned A.G.A. opposed the present application. It is stated that trial court has passed the order in accordance with law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements.

¶25Considered the aforesaid and perused the records.

¶26The law related to summoning the accused in exercised its power under section 319 Cr.P.C., has already been settled by various pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706, Rajesh and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368, Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2021) 18 SCC 321, Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289, Yashodhan Singh and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Others, (2023) LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652, the trial Court while exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is under obligation to consider the evidence recorded before it during trial as also the evidence received by it after cognizance is taken and before commencement of trial.

¶27On the aforesaid, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) in para 78 observed that "the word "evidence" in Section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation". and thereafter in para 85 it has been observed that "in view of the discussion made and the conclusion drawn hereinabove, the answer to the aforesaid question posed is that apart from evidence recorded during trial, any material that has been received by the court after cognizance is taken and before the trial commences, can be utilised only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC. The "evidence" is thus, limited to the evidence recorded during trial." and subsequently, in the case of Rajesh and Others (supra) in para

6.8 held that "Considering the law laid down by this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] and the observations and findings referred to and reproduced hereinabove, it emerges that (i) the Court can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned and the Court need not wait till the cross-examination of such a witness and the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination; and (ii) a person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC, provided from the evidence (may be on the basis of the evidence collected in the form of statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned), it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial." and thereafter, in the case of Manjeet Singh (supra) observed as under: "15.11. The word "evidence" in Section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents.

15.12. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation."

¶28Thus, it is apparent that trial court is not under obligation to consider the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

¶29In regard to the aforesaid as also, in view of settled legal proposition indicated above, this Court is of the view that trial Court has not committed any illegality in not considering the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation.

¶30In so far as the reliability of testimony/evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is concerned, this Court is of the view that any observation made by this Court at this stage of the proceedings on this aspect of the case would prejudice the case of parties before trial court.

¶31However, it would be apt to indicate that for the purpose of summoning the applicant to face the trial, the trial court to the view of this Court has not erred in law and facts both. It is for the following reasons:-

(i) Prompt FIR making specific allegation against the applicant was lodged.

(ii) P.W.1 and P.W.2 supported the basic story of the prosecution, as narrated in the FIR.

(iii) The trial court after taking note of evidence, as per law settled, available before it i.e. evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 recorded its satisfaction and thereafter passed the order dated

10.05.2024, under challenge.

¶32For the reasons aforesaid, the present application is dismissed.  Costs made easy. Order Date :- 23.8.2024 Jyoti/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench