Allowed

Sri Anil George and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2020A482/17419/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special jurisdictional application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged a summoning order issued in a prosecution under the Factories Act. The court quashed the order for lack of application of mind and failure to record satisfaction, as the magistrate had erroneously relied on a non-existent chargesheet instead of a valid complaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned summoning order dated 16.01.2020 is quashed. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, is directed to pass fresh orders adopting the proceedings of the complaint case in view of Sectio

Sri Anil George and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17419 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sri Anil George And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kundan Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 16.01.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Complaint Case no.2016 of 2020 (State vs. Noel N. Tata and others), under Section 92 of Factories Act along with the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.2016 of 2020 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

¶7

The grounds to challenge the impugned order are that the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants under Section 92 Factories Act without considering the facts as well as following procedure as prescribed under the law. Learned Magistrate without recording satisfaction and even without following provisions as prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code issued summons to the applicants. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals the non application of mind. The impugned order is gross abuse process of law passed by the learned court below.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed this application and contended that the complaint was moved by the public servant. There was no requirement to examine the complainant or witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order bears no illegality and needs no intervention. The impugned order is Annexure-1 dated 16.01.2020.

¶9

From the bare perusal of this order it reveals that the learned court below took cognizance on the chargesheet and after perusal of the papers passed the order to register the case and issued summons to the applicants.

¶10

Admittedly no chargesheet was filed before the court concerned. The complaint is annexure-6 to the affidavit which was moved on behalf of Sachin Kumar Yadav, Assistant Director, Factory Act U.P./Factory Inspector,U.P., Agra, Region 32 Garden Road, Agra. before the court of

¶11

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. In this complaint there are certain annexures such as additional copy of complaint, inspection note etc.

¶12

Section 105 of Factories Act, 1948 provides as under:-

¶13

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, an Inspector.

¶14

(2) No Court below that of a Presidency Magistrate or of a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.

¶15

Therefore from bare perusal of the this provision it is evident that proceedings under the Factories Act, 1948 can be initiated upon the complaint.

¶16

Learned court below by passing the impugned order has not followed the procedure of complaint case before passing the summoning order.

¶17

Certainly in the present case complaint was filed and the Magistrate concerned was not required to examine the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. but the Magistrate concerned should have applied judicial mind while passing the summoning order in view of proviso under Section 200 and 204 Cr.P.C.. The impugned order reveals that the Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance straightway mentioning the chargesheet while there is no chargesheet on record as such the impugned order bears illegality and the same needs interference. Accordingly this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed.

¶18

The instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed . The impugned order dated 16.01.2020 is hereby quashed.

¶19

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra is directed to pass fresh orders adopting the proceedings of complaint case in view of Sections 200 and 204 Cr.P.C..

¶20

Order Date :- 1.12.2020

¶21

Asha

Sri Anil George and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anil George and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meer Mohammad and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhote Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manveer @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Neelam Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Harish Rajaura Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep @ Sanju Vs State of U.P.