Quashed

Chitan Singh Shakya Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2022A482/14083/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed a mechanically passed summoning/cognizance order under Section 406 IPC in a Budaun court case. The bench set aside the order dated July 16, 2019, citing a failure to apply judicial mind and remitted the matter for afresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 16.07.2019 set aside; matter remitted to the Court below to pass order on cognizance and summoning afresh.

Chitan Singh Shakya Kumar Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14083 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chitan Singh Shakya Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Satsangi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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 charge-sheet No.81/2019, dated 24.04.2019 and summoning order dated 16.07.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.1527/2019, Case Crime No.71/2018, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Islam Nagar, District Budaun, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II Budaun.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant is not named in first information report, which was lodged against Yashpal Shakya and Narendra. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case without any credible evidence against him. Learned counsel submitted that regarding the matter in dispute, the applicant has submitted an application before the S.S.P. Budaun that his firm has established the alleged solar lights and thereafter, applicant was falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 16.07.2019 has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling the name of the applicants and other details of case like case number, crime number and police station etc. in the proforma, which clearly shows that the impugned summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial

¶8

mind and thus, the impugned cognizance/summoning order is not sustainable. It was further submitted that after submission of the charge-sheet, no summon or bailable warrant has been served upon applicant and that he has absolutely no knowledge about the proceedings of this case for about the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 16.07.2019.

¶9

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 that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶10

Perusal of record shows that the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 16.07.2019 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 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 cognizance/summoning order dated 16.07.2019, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateII Budaun 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 off.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.6.2022 Neeraj

¶15

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.06.07 11:20:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chitan Singh Shakya Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitan Singh Shakya Kumar 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

Rohit Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Behari Garg Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omkar Nath Yadav @ Onkar Nath and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sultan Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmatma Chaudhary and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another