Application filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging a summoning order dated 17.10.2020. The High Court set aside the order for lack of application of mind and procedural violations, remanding the matter for fresh orders.
Impugned order dated 17.10.2020 set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court 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. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19122 of 2022
Applicant :- Mohit (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishe Pandey,Praveen Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
This application has been filed with a prayer to to quash the charge sheet dated 111-A of 2020 dated 6.10.2020 as well as cognizance order date 17.10.2020 arising out of case crime no. 0055 of 2020, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPc and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. mahila Thana, District Muzafffarnagar.
Counsel for the applicants 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 17.10.2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded before the concerned court below for passing fresh orders of summoning and cognizance if it deems fit.
Consequently, the application is allowed in part in terms of the order passed above.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for its compliance as stated above.
Order Date :- 2.8.2022
RPD
Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.08.03 17:01:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a summoning order passed on a cyclostiled copy demonstrating no application of mind is liable to be set aside.
Whether the matter should be remanded to the Trial Court for passing fresh orders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶7
Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶7
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2009) (9) ADJ 778]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohit
State Of U.P. And Another
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
