Allowed

P.K. Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022A482/14540/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside an impugned order summing up the applicant under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, finding the order flawed for lacking requisite opinion on sufficient grounds and potentially malicious.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.01.2006 under Section 504, 506 IPC summing the applicant is set aside.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14540 of 2006 Applicant :- P.K. Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶2

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶3

In the present application, the impugned order dated 27.01.2006 is passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. whereby the applicant has been summoned under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C.

¶4

According to office report dated 31.10.2021, notice has been served upon opposite party No.2 through his brother, therefore, it is sufficient service, however, none appears on his behalf.

¶5

Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for applicant submits that interim order was passed on 15.11.2006 as well as the requisite opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against applicant under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. are not present and he has placed reliance upon paragraph 38 of Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 which is mentioned hereinafter :-

¶6

" 38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons......."

¶7

Learned counsel further submits that though the allegations were made against applicant under Section 406 and 427 I.P.C. but that were not found to be true and further the applicant was working as a Junior Engineer at the relevant time and opposite party No.2 was prosecuted under the relevant provisions of Indian Electricity Act and thereafter as an afterthought and to put pressure on applicant, these proceedings were initiated.

¶8

In order to appreciate the argument of learned counsel for applicant, I have carefully perused the entire record and found that there is merit in the argument that requisite opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against applicant are not present and relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :-

¶9

"पररिववाददी दवारिवा पररिववाद प्ቔ कके समररन मम धवारिवा 200 द० ्ቚ० ससं० कके असंतररत स्वयसं कको धवारिवा 202 द० ्ቚ० ससं० कके असंतररत सदी० डब्ललू० 1 नरिकेश पवाल एवसं सदी० डब्ललू० 2 जतपवाल कको पकेश ककयवा रयवा हहै तरवा अकभिलकेखदीय सवाቌኚय मम एस० एस० पदी० ममु० नररि कको कदए रए ्ቚवा० प्ቔ ककी रिजजस्टटदी रिसदीद , दवाजखल ककी रयदी हहै । पररिववाददी दवारिवा ्ቚस्तमुत ममौजखक औरि अकभिलकेखदीय सवाቌኚय सके पररिववाद प्ቔ कके करनोሪ ककी आसंकशक पमुकቖኌ हकोतदी हहै । अकभियमुक पदी० कके० रमुपवा कके कवरु्ቍ धवारिवा 504 , 506 भिवा० द० ससं० कके असंतररत कवायरववाहदी ककयके जवानके हकेतमु पयवारप आधवारि हहै । जहव तक धवारिवा ा 406 , 427 भिवा० द० ससं० कवा ्ቚश्न हहै इसकको जस्ቍ करिनके कके जलए ्ቚरम दृष्टवा ककोई दस्तवावकेजदी सवाቌኚय ्ቚस्तमुत नहीሻ ककयवा रयवा हहै। यह भिदी स्पस्ट नहीሻ ककयवा रयवा हहै कक यके रूपए ककस बबक सके कनकवालके रए तरवा इनकवा सकोत क्यवा हहै ।

¶10

अततः कवपकदी पदी० कके० रमुपवा कके कवरु्ቍ ्ቚरम दृष्टवा अपरिवाध धवारिवा 504 , 506 भिवा० द० ससं० कवा बनतवा हहआ्ቚ तदीत हकोतवा हहै।"

¶11

It is apparent that impugned order fails on the test of Lalankumar Singh (supra). The facts of the present case also falls under sub-paragraph 7 of paragraph 102 of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 which describes that if the proceedings are maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, it may be quashed.

¶12

In view of above, the outcome of above discussion is that there are grounds to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, impugned order dated 27.01.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 5326/9 of 2005 (Kanak Singh Vs. P.K. Gupta) under Section 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chhapar, District- Muzaffar Nagar, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar is set aside.

¶13

Accordingly, this application is allowed .

¶14

Order Date :- 14.11.2022 Nirmal Sinha

¶15

Digitally signed by NIRMAL SINHA Date: 2022.11.15 11:27:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

P.K. Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K. 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

Kali Charan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Pal Singh Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nepal Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Bhola Alias Arvind and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Jeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others