Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a summoning order passed by the A.C.J.M. Court, Varanasi, solely because it was issued on a cyclostyled copy and without application of mind, relying on prior precedents.
Impugned order dated 25.8.2018 set aside; matter remanded to A.C.J.M., Court no 3, Varanasi for fresh orders.
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. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14967 of 2021
Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed with a prayer to to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 984 of 2018 (State Vs. Deepak Kumar Singh and others), Case Crime no. 714 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 494, 323, 506 IPC, and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court no 3, Varanasi.
Counsel for the applicants confines his arguments to the first part of the submission that the summoning order is bereft of application of mind and has been passed on the cyclostyled copy. He thus argues that the summoning order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and therefore is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826 as well as Single Judge judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2009) (9) ADJ 778] on an Application No. 19647 of 2009 filed under Section 482 CrPC on 15.10.2009. He, thus, argues that the summoning order is liable to be set aside in view of the well settled law of this Court. He also placed before me several orders passed by this Court whereby similar orders have been set aside by this Court and the matters have been remanded before the Trial Court for fresh orders in accordance with law. A perusal of the summoning order impugned in the present proceedings clearly demonstrates that there was no application of mind whatsoever prior to the passing of the summoning order, which has been repelled by this Court in various judgments.
In view of the categorical pronouncements of this Court, the impugned order dated 25.8.2018 passed by A.C.J.M., Court no 3, Varanasi is set aside and the matter is remanded before the A.C.J.M., Court no 3, Varanasi for passing fresh orders of summoning and cognizance if it deems fit.
Consequently, the application is allowed in part and the order dated 25.8.2018 is set aside in terms of the order passed above.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the A.C.J.M., Court no 3, Varanasi for its compliance as stated above.
Order Date :- 2.12.2021
RPD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a summoning order passed on a cyclostyled copy without application of mind can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC?
Whether the impugned summoning order bearing the vice of non-application of mind should be set aside and remanded for fresh orders?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶7
Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶7
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2009) (9) ADJ 778]
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Deepak Kumar Singh And 2 Others
State of U.P.
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
