High Court quashed mechanical summoning and cognizance orders in a criminal appeal arising from a family property dispute, remitting the matter to the Magistrate to apply judicial mind afresh.
Impugned summoning order dated 09.06.2020 set aside and matter remitted to Court below to pass order on cognizance and summoning afresh.
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. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7258 of 2022
Applicant :- Parvej Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 03.11.2018, summoning order dated 09.06.2020 and Bailable Warrants dated 22.10.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.6967/2020 (State Vs. Parvej Ahmad), Case Crime No.0208/2018, under Sections 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Chowk, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that both the parties belongs to same family and in fact the dispute is regarding partition of property and that a civil suit is pending between the parties. The first information report was lodged against seven named and one unknown person and out of them, six accused persons were exonerated during investigation and charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants only. It has further been submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted in a routine manner without proper investigation. Learned counsel further submitted that impugned summoning order dated 09.06.2020 has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling the name of the applicants, other details of case like case number, crime number and police station etc. in the proforma, which clearly shows that this order has been passed in a
mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned cognizance order is not sustainable.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.
Perusal of record shows that the impugned summoning order dated 09.06.2020 has been passed on 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.
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.
Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 09.06.2020, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi 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.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.5.2022 Neeraj
Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.05.28 15:42:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned summoning and cognizance order was passed mechanically without applying judicial mind.
Whether the trial court erred in maintaining criminal proceedings without proper investigation in a family property dispute.
Whether the High Court ought to quash lower orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ankit Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶11
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. J.I.C. 2010 (1) 432
Basasudin and others Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶11
Basasudin and others Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (1) JIC, 335 All
Abdul Rashid and others Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶11
Abdul Rashid and others Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (3) JIC, 7661 All
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Parvej Ahmad
State of U.P.
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
