Allowed

Smt. Manju Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2021A482/6604/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC quashing an order of cognizance. The court held that the order was unsustainable as it was mechanically filled without applying judicial mind. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate to apply judicial mind and pass a fresh order before predicing charges.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded to the Magistrate to apply judicial mind and pass a fresh order.

Smt. Manju Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6604 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Manju Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar,Chandrama Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashank Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

/kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0&41 lu~ 2020] vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 506 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk uokcxat] ftyk dkuiqj uxj esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= la0 322 lu 2020] fnukafdr 20&11&2020 ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 32672 lu 2020] tks eq[; esVzksiksfyfVu eftLVzsV] dkuiqj uxj ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk blesa ikfjr rych vkns’k fn0 21&12&2020 ds fo:) nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

¶6

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk] foi{kh la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj’khyu fd;kA

¶7

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd vkosnd ds fo:) /kkjk 420] 506 Hkk0na0fo0 dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha curk gS] voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr rych vkns’k fn0 21&12&2020 ,d izksQkekZ vkMZj gS] ftlesa fd ,d Nis&Nik, izksQkekZ ij dsoy frfFk Hkjds rych vkns’k ikfjr dj fn;k x;k gS] bl izdkj rych vkns’k ikfjr 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

¶10

the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind."(Emphasis supplied)

¶11

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

¶12

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 nkf.Md okn esa rych vkns’k 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

¶13

rn~uqlkj ;g /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr nk;j ;g vkosnu i= vaxhdj.k ds Lrj ij gh] Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mijksDr of.kZr okn dh dk;Zokgh vikLr dh tkrh gS] ,oa izdj.k dks lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; ds 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

¶14

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

¶15

fn0 % 5&10&2021 ds0lh0flag

¶16

2 of 2

Smt. Manju Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju Gupta 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

Somari Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kampu Devi @ Sima Rai Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahant K.Krishna Mahananand Giri Goswami Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate and 2 Others

Brajesh Chaturvedi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abrar Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.