The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to set aside a summoning order passed by the A.C.J.M. court without application of mind and on a cyclostyled copy. The matter was remanded for fresh orders.
The impugned summoning order dated 1.11.2012 was set aside and the matter was remanded 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. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6985 of 2021
Applicant :- Rohit Kumar @ Roky Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 549 of 2012 (State vs. Rajni and others) pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Meerut, P.S.- Inchauli, District Meerut, u/s 363, 366 I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No. 42 of 2011.
Counsel for the applicant 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 1.11.2012 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No.9, Meerut, is set aside and the matter is remanded before the court concerned for passing fresh orders of summoning and cognizance if it deems fit.
Consequently, the application is allowed in part and the order
dated 1.11.2012 is set aside in terms of the order passed above.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for its compliance as stated above.
Order Date :- 14.9.2021 Vandana
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a summoning order passed on a cyclostyled copy without application of mind ought to be set aside.
Whether the criminal proceedings under sections 363 and 366 IPC should be remanded for fresh orders of summoning and cognizance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶6
Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶6
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2009) (9) ADJ 778]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rohit Kumar @ Roky
State of U.P.
Another
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
