Dismissed

Sanjay Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2022A227/1474/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter under Article 227, the High Court dismissed the petition seeking to set aside a Magistrate's summoning order and a revisional court's order rejecting a writ against the same. The Court held that summoning discretion lies with the Magistrate and insufficiency of evidence is not a ground for quashing the order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; summoning order and revisional order remained intact.

Sanjay Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1474 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Abhishek Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

This is the proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, court No. 23 Azamgarh in a complaint No. 396 of 2012 (Lalmuni Devi vs. Damodar Singh and others) under Sections 352, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, police station Sidhari, district Azamgarh as well the revisional court's order dated 12.3.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge while deciding the criminal revision No. 210 of 2018 (Sanjay Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another).

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 11.10.2012, the petitioners were summoned under the aforesaid sections 352, 427, 504 and 506 IPC of the Indian Penal Code to face the trial.

¶8

The learned Magistrate after due application of mind and assessing the materials on record thought it proper to summon Damodar Singh, Sanjay Singh, Ajay Sigh and Santosh Singh in the aforesaid offence. Aggrieved by the order of summoning, a revision was preferred by the named three accused persons having No. 210 of 2018, which was rejected by the learned revisional court by a detailed order.

¶9

It is settled principle of law that once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion, it is not for the High Court or even the Supreme Court to substitute its own discretion for that of Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether the allegations in a complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused, meaning thereby sufÏciency of

¶10

insufÏciency of materials, would not be the criteria of summoning of the evidence. Moreover, by issuing the accused persons to face the trial, the proposed accused persons are having no locusstandi to put their defence so as to assail the summoning order.

¶11

Once the petitioners have been summoned, it is open for them to move a suitable discharge application at appropriate stage, and I do not find any illegality or perversity either in the summoning order or in the revisional court's order.

¶12

The present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.3.2022 Sumaira

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMAIRA AQUIL Date: 2022.04.01 12:16:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Singh 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

Nanda Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Piyush Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Jainab Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagdish Prasad Shukla Alias Yogiraj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Other

Amar Kumar Dauneriya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others