Quashed

Pradeep Singh and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2021A482/12351/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash proceedings under Section 171 CrPC which were initiated mechanically without applying the judicial mind. The court granted ex-parte relief to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the proceedings under Section 171 CrPC and remanded the matter to the lower court to pass a fresh order after applying judicial mind following a full hearing.

Pradeep Singh and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12351 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Singh And 11 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rishi Kant Rai,Raksha Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk mifLFkr gSaA

¶6

/kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] ,l0Mh0,e0@vflLVsaV dysDVj fcandh }kjk /kkjk 111 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr fuxZr uksfVl fn0 1&4&2021 dks vikLr djus gsrq nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

¶7

vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd ,l0Mh0,e0@vflLVsaV dysDVj fcandh }kjk /kkjk 111 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr fuxZr uksfVl fn0 1&4&2021 ,d izksQkekZ vkMZj gS] ftlesa fd ,d Nis&Nik, izksQkekZ ij dsoy frfFk Hkjds uksfVl tkjh dj nh x;h gS] bl izdkj uksfVl tkjh djus esa fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk vius LoLFk efLr"d dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gS] blfy, mijksDr okn dh dk;Zokgh dks vikLr dj fn;k tk;A vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk Vishnu Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another 2020 (11) ADJ 615 esa ikfjr fof/k O;oLFkk dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd"V fd;k] ftlds izLrj 18 esa fuEufyf[kr rF; mn~/kr fd, x, gSa %&

¶8

This type of order has already been held unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit (supra) relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said decision, is extracted below:

¶9

"Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4^) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind."(Emphasis supplied)

¶10

eSaus vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ,oa iz’uxr vkns’k dk ifj’khyu fd;kA

¶11

i=koyh ds ifj’khyu ls ,slk ik;k x;k fd lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; }kjk iz’uxr vkns’k fizUVsM izksQkekZ ij ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa dsoy frfFk Hkj nh x;h gS ,oa vkns’k ikfjr djus esa lacaf/kr eftLVzsV }kjk U;kf;d efLr"d dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gS] tks fd vkifRrtud gSA fdlh izdj.k esa uksfVl tkjh fd;k tkuk ,d xaHkhj ekeyk gS] ftls fo}ku eftLVzsV }kjk cgqr gh lksp le>dj ml ij vius U;kf;d efLr"d ls vkns’k ikfjr djuk pkfg,A

¶12

rn~uqlkj ;g /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr nk;j ;g vkosnu i= vaxhdj.k ds Lrj ij gh] fcuk foi{kh la0 2 dks uksfVl tkjh fd, gq,] Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk iz’uxr vkns’k@uksfVl vikLr fd;k tkrk gS] ,oa izdj.k dks muds le{k bl funsZ’k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns’k esa mfYyf[kr fdlh Hkh fVIi.kh ds xq.k&nks"k ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk] i{kdkjksa dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj nsrs gq, ,oa i=koyh dk lE;d :is.k voyksdu djus ds mijkUr] izdj.k ij mfpr vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tk;A

¶13

dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns'k dh ,d izfrfyfi lacaf/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks vfoyEc Hkstuk lqfuf'pr djsA

¶14

fn0 % 26&08&2021 ds0lh0flag

¶15

2 of 2

Pradeep Singh and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Singh and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Nazreen Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarun Verma Nad 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shankar Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Seema Varshney and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay @ Gullu Baljor and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omkarnath Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another