Partly allowed

Arjun Raghav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2022A482/10996/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed a mechanical summoning order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that the order, passed using a printed proforma without considering relevant material, lacked application of judicial mind and was liable to be set aside. The matter was remitted to the court below to pass orders afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 13.12.2021 set aside; matter remitted to the Court below to pass order on cognizance and summoning afresh.

Arjun Raghav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10996 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arjun Raghav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar,Purushottam Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 27296/2021, Case Crime no. 01089/2020, under Sections 147, 148, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligarh pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, as well as for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 22.09.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 13.12.2021 passed in the aforesaid case.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR of impugned case has been lodged by making false and baseless allegations. Learned counsel has referred the contents of FIR and statements of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It has further been submitted that impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling the name of the applicant, other details of case like case number, crime number and police station etc. in the proforma, which clearly shows that this order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned cognizance order is not sustainable.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said

¶9

that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶10

Perusal of record shows that the impugned summoning order dated 13.12.2021 has been passed on photocopy of a printed proforma and merely details of case like Name of Accused, Sections, Police Station, Crime Number and Next Date of Listing were filled in the said proforma. It is well settled that summoning order has to be passed after considering relevant material and applying judicial mind. In the instant case, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical way without applying judicial mind.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. J.I.C. 2010 (1) 432, Basasudin and others Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (1) JIC, 335 All, Abdul Rashid and others Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (3) JIC, 7661 All , the impugned summoning/cognizance order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 13.12.2021, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to the Court below to pass the order on cognizance and summoning afresh expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 24.5.2022 Anand

¶14

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.05.25 10:56:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arjun Raghav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Raghav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Pandey @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Somendra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dr. Anil Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Anita Vs State of U.P. and Others

Km. Seeta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dhani Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another