PRABHU DUTT TIWARIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

                      [2017] 12 S.C.R. 123


                     PRABHU DUTT TIWARI                                A
                                 v.
           THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 2113 of2017)
                       DECEMBER07, 2017                                B

        [KURIAN JOSEPH AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ. ]
       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
                                                                        c
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            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 12 S.C.R.



A     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]
B
            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.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

            2 The appellant is aggrieved since an order summoning the
 E
      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
 F          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
G           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
H           number-5 is not stable and he remains disturbed and taking
PRABHU DUTT TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                         125
               & ORS. [KURIAN, J.]

      advantage of the same and all the accused by colluding A
      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.
                                                                       B
           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.                                                        c
           On perusal of the documents available on record a case
      appears to be prima facie made out against the accused
      Narendra Misl1ra, Awadhesh Mishra, Pushpa Devi Asliutosh
      Tiwari and Mahima Tiwari under sections 419, 420, 468, 471
      and /20B /PC. The matter is fit for summoning the accused D
      for trial.

                                 ORDER
           The accused Narendra Mishra, Awadhesh Mishra,
      Pushpa Devi, Ashutosh Tiwari and Mahima Tiwari are hereby
                                                                         E
      summoned under sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120B /PC.
      The Complainant to comply within a week. List for attendance
      as above on 20.12.2012."

      3. The respondents challenged the order, extracted above, in a
criminal writ petition before the High Court. The consideration of the   F
High Court reads as follows :-
      "! have given my anxious judicial thoughts over the entire
      facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the fact that
      the bhumidhari right of Mahima Tiwari has never been
      challenged in the criminal complaint or in the evidence led in     a
      support of the allegations made therein and there is no
      allegation or evidence on record that the sale property was
      ancestral property or the complainant had any right by birth
       therein, Mahima Tiwari (accused no.5) was fully entitled to
      transfer his land in favour of Pushpa Devi and if he has
                                                                         H
126             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 12 S.C.R.



A           executed the sale deed in question in her favour,. neither he
            nor Pushpa Devi nor any other person can be held liable for
            criminal offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468,
            471, 120-B of l.P.C. The court of learned Magistrate and
            learned revisional court are not supposed to shut their eyes
            to the transferable right of a Bhumidhar. They are not bound
 B
            in all the circumstances to take it for granted that if the oral
            evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P. C. has been led in
            support of the allegations made in the criminal complaint,
            their hands are fettered upto the extent that except issuing
            the process under Section 204 Cr.P. C. they would not pass
 c          any other order including the order of dismissal of the criminal
            complaint, if at all it appears to the Magistrate that accused
            have not committed any criminal offence. If there is any
            grievance to the complainant he is well within his right to
            agitate the matter before the civil court in a suit for
            cancellation of the sale deed. The criminal jurisdiction of the
 D
            court cannot be invoked to settle the dispute purely of civil
            nature."
             4. Atthe stage of summoning the accused on the 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
 E
      the records made available and the evidence adduced by the complainant.
             5. Having gone through the order passed by 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
 F    are guilty or not. At the stage of summoning, as already stated above,
      the satisfaction required for the Magistrate is only to see whether there
      is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.
             6. Such a satisfaction for summoning an accused having been
      made out, the High Court went wrong in interfering with the summoning
 G    order. It was too early for the High Court to enter a finding otherwise.
      The impugned order is, hence, set aside. The appeal is allowed.
              7. The party-respondents may appear before the trial court within
      a period of one month from today. On their appearance before the trial
      court, they shall be released on bail on furnishing sufficient surety/sureties
 H
PRABHU DUTT TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH                             127
               & ORS. [KURIAN, J.]

to the satisfaction of the trial court. We make it clear that we have not    A
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it is open to the
parties to take all available steps at the appropriate stage.


Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeal allowed.