The court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order, holding that prima facie case exists and disputed facts cannot be adjudicated. It directed consideration of the bail application in light of settled Supreme Court law.
Application for quashing dismissed; bail application directed to be considered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 23
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9170 of 2019
Applicant :- Sarjeet And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Kanaujiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
"23. Admitted position in law is that in those cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing the process. Section 202 Cr.P.C. was amended in the year 2005 by the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 22.6.2006 by adding the words "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction". there is a vital purpose or objective behind this amendment, namely, to ward off false complaints against such persons residing at a far-off places in order to save them from unnecessary harassment. Thus, the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. The aforesaid purpose is specifically mentioned in the note appended to the Bill proposing the said amendment."
However, it is directed that bail application of the accused-applicants shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down by Supreme Court and the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
Order Date :- 14.3.2019 Manoj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any ground to quash the summoning order despite allegations of false implication and non-compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C.
Whether disputed questions of fact preclude adjudication at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether bail application should be directed to be considered.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and anotherReferred¶9
Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another, (2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 528
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶13
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶13
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaReferred¶13
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶13
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283. · Who else cites this
Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶15
Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sarjeet
Other
State Of U.P.
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
