The High Court allowed the applicant's application under Section 482 CrPC, setting aside a summoning order dated 11.11.2020 for lack of application of mind. The matter was remanded to the trial court to pass fresh orders.
The impugned summoning order dated 11.11.2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded before the concerned court below.
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. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7766 of 2022
Applicant :- Mukul Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Araf Khan,Lihazur Rahman Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard Ms. Sonakshi Arora, Advocate holding brief of Sri Lihazur Rahman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed with a prayer to to quash the summoning order dated 11.11.2020 passed by Special C.J.M. Agra on the charge sheet dated 10.11.2020 and entire criminal proceedings of Crl. Case no. 9493 of 2020, case crime no. 879 of 2019, under sections 308, 323, 147 IPC, P.S. Sikandra, District Agra.
Counsel for the applicant confines his arguments to the first part of the submission that the summoning order is bereft of application of mind and has been passed on the cyclostyled copy. He thus argues that the summoning order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and therefore is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826 as well as Single Judge judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2009) (9) ADJ 778] on an Application No. 19647 of 2009 filed under Section 482 CrPC on 15.10.2009. He, thus, argues that the summoning order is liable to be set aside in view of the well settled law of this Court. He also placed before me several orders passed by this Court whereby similar orders have been set aside by this Court and the matters have been remanded before the Trial Court for fresh orders in accordance with law.
A perusal of the summoning order impugned in the present proceedings clearly demonstrates that there was no application of mind whatsoever prior to the passing of the summoning order, which has been repelled by this Court in various judgments.
In view of the categorical pronouncements of this Court, the impugned order dated 11.11.2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded before the concerned court below for passing fresh orders of summoning and cognizance if it deems fit.
Consequently, the application is allowed in part in terms of the order passed above.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for its compliance as stated above.
Order Date :- 14.12.2022
RPD
Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.12.15 17:46:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the summoning order passed by the trial court is liable to be quashed for being bereft of application of mind and based on cyclostyled copy.
Whether the impugned summoning order should be remanded for passing fresh orders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶7
Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶7
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2009) (9) ADJ 778]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukul Yadav
State of U.P.
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
