Allowed

Sri Om and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2018A227/4661/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 227 and quashed a cryptic summoning order and the subsequent reversal of a criminal revision. The court held that the Magistrate failed to conduct a proper inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and record prima facie satisfaction, violating precedents set by this Court.

What did the court decide?

The summoning order dated 15.11.2017 and the revisional order dated 08.06.2018 were quashed and the matter remanded to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order.

Sri Om and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4661 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sri Om And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,Ram Babu Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Ram Babu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopshahar, District-Bulandshahar in Complaint Case No. 1153 of 2017 (Gajendra Singh Vs. Sri Om and others), under sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Dibai, District-Bulandshahar as well as the the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopshahar, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 584 of 2017 (Sri Om and others Vs. Gajendra and another) under Section 397 Cr.P.C. whereby the aforesaid criminal revision filed by the petitioners challenging the summoning order dated 15.11.2017 has been rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the summoning order dated 15.11.2017. He submits that the order impugned in the present application is wholly arbitrary and therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below has simply recorded a conclusion that on the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, prima facie an offence under sections 47, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC appears to have been committed. The said conclusion recorded by the Court below is not preceded by a discussion of the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the complainant and his witnesses as recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. He, therefore, submits that in absence of any finding recorded by the Court below, on the basis of the averments made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant and that of the witnesses, no prima facie satisfaction was recorded by the Court below for summoning the applicant under section 47, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC.

¶8

In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance is placed upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Mahboob and others vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 320, (All) (LB) . Paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the said judgement are relevant for the controversy in hand and are accordingly reproduced herein under:-

¶9

"(10) Hon'ble Apex Court has further dealt with the nature of inquiry which is required to be conducted by the Magistrate and referring the case of Vijay Dhanuka (supra) it was held as under:

¶10

"14. In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, the next question which falls for our determination is whether the learned Magistrate before issuing summons has held the inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Code. The word "inquiry " has been defined under Section 2(g) of the Code, the same reads as follows:

¶11

"2. (g) ''inquiry' means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or court,"

¶12

It is evident from the aforesaid provision, every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the Magistrate or the court is an inquiry. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are examined whereas under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate, for purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code."

¶13

(11) In the present case, the learned Magistrate has not conducted any inquiry so as to satisfy himself that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered alongwith the statements recorded and the result of such inquiry. There is ground for proceedings against the petitioners under Section 204 CrPC. There is nothing on record to show that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. It must be recalled that summoning of accused to appear the criminal court is a serious matter affecting the dignity self-respect and image in the society. A process of criminal court cannot be made a weapon of harassment.

¶14

(12) Learned Magistrate has passed a very cryptic order simply by saying that the statement of complainant as well as witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC are perused and accused are summoned such order per se itself illegal which could not stand the test of law."

¶15

Reliance is also placed upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 589, (All) (LB). Paragraph No. 10 of the aforesaid judgement is relevant for the controversy in hand. The same is as under:-

¶16

"Learned Magistrate was required to atleast mention in the order about the prima facie satisfaction for summoning the accused. The order must reflect that the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law after satisfying himself about the prima facie allegations made in the complaint. The accused cannot be summoned mechanically merely by writing that perused the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C."

¶17

In the light of the judgements referred to above, it is explicitly clear that the impugned summoning order passed by Court below is cryptic and does not stand the test laid down by this Court.The revisional court also erred in law in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners.

¶18

Accordingly, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution succeeds and is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopshahar, District, Bulandshahar in Complaint Case No. 1153 of 2017 (Gajendra Singh Vs. Sri Om and others), under sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Dibai, District-Bulandshahar as well as the the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopshahar, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 584 of 2017 (Sri Om and others Vs. Gajendra and another) are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopshahar, District, Bulandshahar, who shall pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made herein above.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.7.2018 YK

Sri Om and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Om and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhakar Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ahmed Raza and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rambabu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Padam Chandra Goyal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Kali Din Yadav and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another