Disposed

Nidhi Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 May 2023/3671/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discharged the applicant Nidhi Gupta passed a summoning order on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind. The court set aside the summons and remitted the matter to the trial court for a fresh order within 30 days, following the precedent of Pankaj Jaiswal. The merits of the criminal allegations were not examined.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 24.04.2018 and consequential orders set aside; matter remitted to trial court for fresh order within 30 days.

Nidhi Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37888

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3671 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Nidhi Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Durgesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

AfÏdavit of Compliance filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.Nishad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the Chargesheet dated 04-11-2017, State of U.P. Vs. Rajesh Gupta & Anr. having Crime No. 278 of 2017, under sections 406, 420, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station-Bajarkhala, District-Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that the allegation in the first information report against the applicant is that she has taken Rs. 22,00,000/- alongwith her husband for providing the jobs to the son and daughter of the complainant in the Railway Department. He next added that no such incident has ever taken place as alleged in the first information report and the evidences collected against the applicant do not make out a case. He submits that the first information report has been lodged by the complainant with an ulterior motive.

¶10

After the aforesaid arguments, he submits that the summoning order which has been issued by the learned court below vide order dated 24-04-2018 is erroneous and patently illegal as the same has been passed on a printed proforma. Adding his arguments, he submits that it is settled law that the summoning order cannot be issued on a

¶11

printed proforma as the coordinate Bench of this court has also settled this issue and reasoning given therein is that the Magistrate has to apply his mind over the material placed before him and 'filling in the gaps' in the printed proforma, is indicative that the same has not been applied. He also submits that the order dated 24-04-2018 may be set aside.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant has taken a huge amount from the complainant for providing the jobs to the son and daughter of the complainant and thereafter the matter was investigated and after thorough investiagation,it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and thus, the chargesheet was filed in the case. He further added that the order dated 24-04-2018 though has been passed on printed proforma, but, from perusal of the same, it seems that the court below has applied its judicial mind and has issued the order of summons. He thus, submits that the instant application is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it emerges out that the applicant has taken money from the complainant for providing jobs to his son and daughter and after thorough investigation, the chargesheet has been filed in the case and thus, the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant would not help him.

¶14

This court has further noticed the fact that so far as contention with respect to the summoning order issued on printed proforma is concerned that finds force as from bare perusal of the same, the 'fill in the blanks' have been done by the court below and thus, as per the law settled by a coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Pankaj Jaiswal Versus State of U.P. and another, Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 11334 of 2021, decided on 09-08-2021 and the same is liable to be set aside. Relevant portion of the Judgment in the case of Pankaj Jaiswal(Supra) is extracted hereinunder :-

¶15

"In view of the above, this Court finds and observes that the conduct of the judicial ofÏcers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto, whereas the impugned summoning order was passed in mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and without satisfying himself as to which offence were prima-facie being made out against the applicants on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant. the impugned cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate is against the settled judicial norms."

¶16

Resultantly, the summoning order dated 24-042018 as well as the consequential orders are hereby set aside.

¶17

The matter is remitted back to the trial court concerned for passing a fresh order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations/direction, the instant application is disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 AKS

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nidhi Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidhi Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

Juvenile 'S' Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anant Ram @ Lalla Thru. Father Pitam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smrati Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Shesh Narain Pandey @ Khedu Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sneh Lata @ Shilpi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Raj Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another