Allowed

Lal Mani v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2022A482/25505/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that an interlocutory stay order passed by the Magistrate without detailed reasoning and without applying judicial mind violates Article 21. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh, reasoned orders.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the stay order passed by the Magistrate and remanded the matter for passing a fresh, detailed reasoned order after applying judicial mind.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25505 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Lal Mani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

vkosnd dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0 214 lu 2014] okn la0 967 lu 2018] vUrxZr /kkjk 3@5 fizosU’ku vkQ Msest Vq ifCyd izkiVhZ ,sDV] Fkkuk cgfj;k] ftyk bykgkckn] tks U;kf;d eftLVzsV&2] bykgkckn ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk blesa ikfjr rych vkns’k fn0 13&4&2018 ds fo:) nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

¶6

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd vkosnd ds fo:) mijksDr /kkjkvksa dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha curk gS] voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr izlaKku vkns’k ,d izksQkekZ vkMZj gS] ftlesa fd ,d Nis&Nik, izksQkekZ ij dsoy frfFk Hkjds izlaKku vkns’k ikfjr dj fn;k x;k gS] bl izdkj rych vkns’k ikfjr djus esa fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk vius LoLFk efLr"d dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gS] blfy, mijksDr okn dh dk;Zokgh dks vikLr dj fn;k tk;A vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk Vishnu Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another 2020 (11) ADJ 615 esa ikfjr fof/k O;oLFkk dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd"V fd;k] ftlds izLrj 18 esa fuEufyf[kr rF; mn~/kr fd, x, gSa %&

¶7

This type of order has already been held unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit (supra) relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said decision, is extracted below: "Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4^) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind."(Emphasis supplied)

¶8

eSaus vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ,oa iz’uxr vkns’k dk ifj’khyu fd;kA

¶9

i=koyh ds ifj’khyu ls ,slk ik;k x;k fd lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; }kjk iz’uxr vkns’k fizUVsM izksQkekZ ij ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa dsoy frfFk Hkj nh x;h gS ,oa vkns’k ikfjr djus esa lacaf/kr eftLVzsV }kjk U;kf;d efLr"d dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gS] tks fd vkifRrtud gSA fdlh nkf.Md okn esa rych vkns’k fd;k tkuk ,d xaHkhj ekeyk gS] ftls fo}ku eftLVzsV }kjk cgqr gh lksp le>dj ml ij vius U;kf;d efLr"d ls vkns’k ikfjr djuk pkfg,A

¶10

rn~uqlkj ;g /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr nk;j ;g vkosnu i= vaxhdj.k ds Lrj ij gh] fcuk foi{kh la0 2 dks uksfVl tkjh fd, gq,] Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mijksDr okn esa ikfjr izlaKku@rych vkns’k vikLr fd;k tkrk gS] ,oa izdj.k dks muds le{k bl funsZ’k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns’k esa mfYyf[kr fdlh Hkh fVIi.kh ds xq.k&nks"k ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk] i{kdkjksa dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj nsrs gq, ,oa i=koyh dk lE;d :is.k voyksdu djus ds mijkUr] izdj.k ij mfpr vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tk;A

¶11

dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns'k dh ,d izfrfyfi lacaf/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks vfoyEc Hkstuk lqfuf'pr djsA

¶12

fn0 % 5&9&2022

¶13

ds0lh0flag

¶14

Digitally signed by KAILASH CHANDRA SINGH Date: 2022.09.05 16:54:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lal Mani v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Mani 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

Smt. Sarla Vs State of U.P.and Another

Krishna Kant Agrawal Gupta @ Krishna Kant and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Mohan Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sadhna Singh (Corpus) and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Navneet Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Singh Alias Krishna Kumar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others