Allowed

Rajendra Prasad @ Bagee and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2022A482/42254/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court quashed an order dated 22.5.2017 under Section 204 Cr.P.C. for failure to record an opinion that sufficient grounds existed to proceed, citing Lalankumar Singh. The court remanded the matter to the Trial Court to pass a fresh order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.5.2017 set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh order within four weeks.

Rajendra Prasad @ Bagee and 4 Others Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42254 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad @ Bagee And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

2.By means of this application, applicants have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.840 of 2016 (Amit Kumar Mishra Vs. Rajendra Prasad @ Bagee and others) under Sections 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police StationLalapur, District-Allahabad, pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

¶7

3.I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned order dated 22.5.2017 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is bereft of requisite opinion that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants.

¶8

Supreme Court in the case of Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 has reiterated that there must be an opinion that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants however, the impugned order which is quoted hereinafter has not discussed even remotely that there was an opinion that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants.

¶9

: 22.5.2017- "ददिननाሪक

¶10

पतनवलली आदिदेशनरर पदेश हहई। पररिवनदिली अधधिवकन कको पपूवर दनयत दतधर परि ससुनन जन चसुकन हहै। पतनवलली कन अवलकोकन दकयन।

¶11

अवलकोकन सदे दवददित हहै दक पररिवनदिली अदमित कसुमिनरि दमिशन दनरिन दवपकली रिनजदेन ् ्ቚसनदि उरर बनगली, ससुशलीलन दिदेवली, सदचन, दनदतन एवाሪ गकोल्डली कदे दवरुद साሪबाሪधधित रननदे परि ्ቚरमि सपूचनन ररिपकोरर दिजर करिनयदे जननदे हदेतसु ्ቚस्तसुत ्ቚनररनन पत अन्तगरत धिनरिन 156(3) दिाሪ.्ቚ .साሪ. परि न्यनयनलय दनरिन पनररित आदिदेश ददिननाሪदकत: 20.6.2016 कदे अन स ुनरि ्ቚकरिण कको पररिवनदि कदे रुप मिम दिजर रिधजस्ररि दकयन गयन।

¶12

न्यनयनलय दनरिन पनररित आदिदेश कदे अनसुपनलन मिम पररिवनदिली दनरिन स्वयाሪ कन बयनन धिनरिन 200 दिाሪ.्ቚ .साሪ. एवाሪ धिनरिन 202 दिाሪ.्ቚ .साሪ. कदे तहत सनकलीगण अाሪदकत कसुमिनरि एवाሪ भसु्ቤन कको परिलीदकत करिनयन हहै।

¶13

202 जन.रफ. पररिवनदिल दनरी िन धिनरिन कदे तहत परिलदकत सनकली गण की दे सनቌኚय मिम अदभयकगण दनरसु िन पररिवनदिल ककी रसल ककी उठन लो दे जननदे कदे साሪबाሪधि मिम दवरिकधो िनभनस ह।है पररिवनदिल व उसकी दे गवनहनन दनरिन ्ቚ स्तसुत मफधखि िक एवाሪ अदभलदेखिलय सनቌी ኚयो कሱ पररिशललन सी दे दवपकल री िनजदेन ् ्ቚ सनदि उरर बनगल, ससुशललन दी िदेवल, सदचन, दनदतन 427/504/506 भन. . . एवाሪ गकलो ्डल की दे दवरद धु िनरिन दिाሪ साሪ कदे अन्तगरत कनयरवनहल दकयदे जननदे हदेतसु ्ቚ रम दि ृ्ቖ यन पयनर्቎ सनቌኚय ह।है उपरिककननो स ु नरि दवपकल री िनजदेन ् ्ቚ सनदि उरर बनगल , ससुशललन दी िदेवल , सदचन, 427/504/506 भन. . . दनदतन एवाሪ गकल ो ्डल ककी धो िनरिन दिाሪ साሪ कदे दवचनरिण हदेत बजररियदे सम्मन आहि हत दकयन जनतन ह।है

¶14

मिसुकदिमिन वनस्तदे हनधजरिली अदभयसुक ददिननाሪक 24.6.2017 कको पदेश हको। पररिवनदिली

¶15

धिनरिन 204(4) दिाሪ.्ቚ .साሪ. कदे तहत आवश्यक पहैरिवली 10 ददिन मिम करिदे।

¶16

इलनहनबनदि"

¶17

ददिननाሪक: 22.5.2017 ह 0 अपठनलीय

¶18

दवशदेष मिसुख्य न्यनदयक मिधजस्रटदेर,

¶19

(Emphasis added)

¶20

It would be apposite to quote relevant paragraph 38 of Lalankumar Singh (supra) hereinafter:

¶21

" 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……."

¶22

As discussed above, there is no reason that there was primafacie case or sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicants, therefore, impugned order dated 22.5.2017 is setaside and the matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court to pass a fresh order under Sections 203 or 204 Cr.P.C. as the case may be within a period of four weeks from today.

¶23

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of. Order Date :- 1.11.2022

¶24

¶25

Digitally signed by SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA Date: 2022.11.02 17:53:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Prasad @ Bagee and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad @ Bagee and 4 Others 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

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Renuka Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vivek Kumar Singh @ Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Faisal Naseem @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sanjay Bajpayee Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others