Allowed

Bharat Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2022A482/4915/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that the trial court's summoning order was unsustainable due to being non-speaking and reflecting no application of judicial mind. The court quashed the order and directed the trial court to pass a reasoned, speaking order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned summoning order passed by the Trial Court is quashed.

Bharat Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4915 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bharat Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 27436 of 2020 (State vs. Monu Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 95 of 2020, under Sections 58 of Food Safety Standard Act, 2006, section 63, 65 of Copy Rights Act, 1957, Section 3 of Pandemic Act, 1897, sections 188, 269, 270 I.P.C., Police Station Chhatta, District Agra as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 28.08.2020.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has committed no offence. He further submitted that learned lower court has passed the summoning order without application of mind which is not sustainable in eye of law. He showed some papers and documents in favour of his contention.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the application but conceded the impugned order of summoning is not

¶9

a reasoned order.

¶10

The order of cognizance and summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and order must reflect that Court has applied his mind. Perusal of summoning order reflects no application of mind and it is non-speaking order. Practice of passing cognizance order in such manner must be deprecated which reflects no application of judicial mind and not sustainable in eye of law.

¶11

In view of the above, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed . The impugned summoning order passed by Trial Court is accordingly, quashed.

¶12

The court below is directed to pass a fresh order by speaking and reasoned order after application of judicial mind within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before it. OfÏce is directed to communicate this order to Magistrate concerned though Fax, E-mail or any speedier mode available.

¶13

Order Date :- 5.3.2022 Manoj

¶14

Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR YADAV Date: 2022.03.16 15:28:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bharat Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Kumar Gupta 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Rahul Singh Raghav and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aditya Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Maaz and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another