The Single Judge quashed an unreasoned order issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., remanding it to the J.F.C. to pass a fresh order recording reasons as per Lalankumar Singh.
Impugned order dated 19.2.2022 is set aside and matter remanded to Civil Judge to pass fresh order within three weeks.
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. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27761 of 2022
Applicant :- Raj Kumar And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Istiyaq Ali,Ali Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ikshwaku Srivastava
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Ms. Jagriti Pandey, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Istiyaq Ali, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ikshwaku Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in Criminal Complaint Case No. 3335 of 2021 (Sushila Devi vs. Raj Kumar and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 436, 427 IPC, Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Jaunpur.
Ms. Jagriti Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the impugned order passed under section 204 Cr.P.C. has not satisfied the requirement that there must be a formation of opinion that there are sufÏcient grounds to proceed against the applicants. She read Section 204 Cr.P.C. as well as placed reliance upon a recent judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 that:
"the order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufÏcient 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."
The above submissions are opposed by Sri Ikshwaku Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. However, he failed to satisfy this Court that there was a formation of opinion in the impugned order.
Before adverting to the rival submissions, the relevant part of impugned order is mentioned hereafter:
"पररिववाददी नने धवारिवा 200 द. प. सस. कने अन्तररत अपनवा सशपथ बयवान दरर करिवायवा हहै। इसकने अलवाववा तदीन अन्य सवाकቌኌयोሱ पदी० डब्ललू० 1 वदीरि न रगौतम , पदी० डब्ललू० 2 रिवामआसरिने, पदी० डब्ललू० 3 उषवा दनेवदी कवा भदी धवारिवा 202 द. प. सस. कने अन्तररत बयवान असककत करिवायवा हहै। जरन्हहोनने पररिववाकदनदी कने कथनोሱ कवा समथरन ककयवा हहै।
पररिववाददी दवारिवा दस्तवावनेरदी सवाቌኚय कने रूप मम पपुजलस अधदीቌኌक कहो कदयने रयने पवाथरनवा प्ቔ कक पकतजलकप, रिजरस्टटदी रिसदीद, फहोटहोगवाफ दवाजखिल ककयवा रयवा हहै।
सपुनवा तथवा प्ቔवावलदी कवा अवलहोकन ककयवा।
प्ቔवावलदी परि उपलब्ध सवाቌኚयोሱ एवस समस्त तथ्योሱ कने अवलहोकन सने अकभयपु्ሹरण रिवारकपुमवारि, लवालरदी, कररिरवाशसकरि, हगौसलवा, सपुरिनेश, सपुरदीत, रिवामनेश्वरि, कवमलवादनेवदी कने कवरूद धवारिवा 323, 504, 506, 436, 427 भवा. द. सस. कने अन्तररत पथम दृ्ቖयवा अपरिवाध पवातने हहए तलब करिकने कवचवारिण ककयने रवानने कवा आधवारि पयवार् हहै।"
From perusal of the above order, I found that there is merit in argument of learned counsel for applicants that the Magistrate has not formed any opinion required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. as well as held in Lalankumar Singh (supra). The Magistrate has not stated anything about the statements of PW-1, 2 and 3. There is no reference in regard to prima facie opinion that how the offence are made out against the applicants.
In view of above, the impugned order dated 19.2.2022 Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Jaunpur is set aside and the mater is remanded back to the court concerned to pass fresh order considering the material on record or under sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C. taking note of Lalankumar Singh (supra) within a period of three weeks from today.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.11.2022 Puspendra
(Serial No. 27 out of 236 fresh cases)
Digitally signed by PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH Date: 2022.12.05 13:27:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an impugned order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. to issue process violates Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the magistrate fails to state reasons for finding sufficient grounds?
Whether the magistrate formed the requisite opinion on prima facie case existence and stated reasons in the order dated 19.2.2022?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶7
Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumar and 7 Others
State of U.P.
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
