Remanded

Km. Seeta and 4 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2022A482/4419/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge quashed the summoning and cognizance orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as they were mechanically passed on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind.

What did the court decide?

The impugned summoning order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, was set aside and the matter was remitted to pass a fresh order expeditiously.

Km. Seeta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4419 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Km. Seeta And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Prasad Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings including charge-sheet dated 07.06.2015 and cognizance order dated 20.07.2015 of case no. 1931 of 2015 (State vs. Samudra Singh and others), arising out of case crime no. 296 of 2015, under Sections 147, 149, 353, 427, 447 IPC and Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are resident of Bharatpur, Rajasthan and that their maternal uncle Samudra Singh is a resident of Agra district in U.P and that regarding the disputed land, the maternal uncle of applicants has initiated contempt proceedings against revenue officials regarding illegal encroachment on the disputed land. It was submitted that the first information report of this case was lodged by the 'Lekhpal' as a counterblast of the said proceedings. The applicants have absolutely no knowledge about the registration of first information report and that chargesheet was submitted in a routine manner without proper investigation. Learned counsel submitted that applicant no. 1 and 2 are unmarried young sisters and applicant no.3 is their

¶8

married sister and that entire family of applicants was named in the first information report. It has further been submitted that the impugned summoning order dated 20.07.2015 has been passed on printed proforma by merely filling in the details like name of parties, section, police station, case number etc and thus, it is apparent that the impugned summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned cognizance order is not sustainable. Regarding delay in filing the instant application, learned counsel submitted that applicants have absolutely no knowledge about the impugned proceedings or cognizance/summoning order and that they came to know about the proceedings after non bailable warrants issued against them and thereafter they have moved the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has referred the case of Praveen Kumar Singh @ Praveen Singh and others vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow and others, passed in application 482/378/407 no. 5475 of 2021 decided on 20.12.2021 in support of his contentions.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that in view of allegations made in first information report and evidence collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶10

So far the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants regarding factual aspect of the matter are concerned, the same require determination of questions of fact, which cannot be done at this stage in these proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, from perusal of record it is clear that impugned summoning order dated 20.07.2015 has been passed on printed proforma. Perusal of record shows that the impugned summoning order dated 20.07.2015 has been passed on

¶11

photocopy of a printed proforma and merely details of case like Name of Accused, Sections, Police Station, Crime Number and Next Date of Listing were filled in the said proforma. It is well settled that summoning order has to be passed after considering relevant material and applying mind. In the instant case, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical way without applying judicial mind.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. J.I.C. 2010 (1) 432, Basasudin and others Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (1) JIC, 335 All, Abdul Rashid and others Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (3) JIC, 7661 All , the impugned summoning/cognizance order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶13

Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 20.07.2015, passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to the Court below to pass the order on cognizance and summoning afresh expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 24.5.2022 A. Tripathi

¶15

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.05.25 18:24:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Km. Seeta and 4 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Seeta 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

Ajay Kumar Pandey @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Somendra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dr. Anil Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Anita Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dhani Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Raghav Vs State of U.P. and Another