Sriniwas v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2023A227/4252/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Summoning order set aside for want of application of judicial mind; cognizance taken without disclosing offence under section 409 I.P.C.; remand to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahrajganj for fresh order within two months; Article 227 petition; Case Crime No. 205 of 2018; Case No. 1945 of 2019; P.S. Thuthibari; State Vs. Vidhyasagar Yadav & Others; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:107733.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 19.09.2019 set aside; matter remanded to the court concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order; Registrar (Compliance) directed to send a copy of the order to the court below within ten days for compliance. ¶¶10

Sriniwas Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107733

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4252 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sriniwas Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

1.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the summoning order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahrajganj, upon charge-sheet dated 26.06.2019 in Case No. 1945 of 2019 (State Vs. Vidhyasagar Yadav & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 205 of 2018, under section 409 I.P.C., Police Station-Thuthibari, District Maharajganj.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that summoning order dated 19.09.2019 is under challenged before this Court. It is further submitted that summoning order is at Page No. 22 of the paper book, would demonstrate that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the summoning order without application of judicial mind and the offence under which the summoning has been made has not been provided, and accordingly, the present summoning order is liable to be interfered.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. fairly submits that the order impugned does not prescribed the offence and as such the matter may be remanded back to the authority concerned for decision afresh.

¶10

Considering the fact that the summoning order only states that court concerned has perused the record, and thereafter, has taken cognizance on the aforesaid basis the summoning order has been passed on 19.09.2019 without disclosing that section 409 is made out against the applicant or not. Prima facie , the impugned order is without application of mind and as such the impugned order dated 19.09.2019 passed in Case No. 1945 of 2019 (State Vs. Vidhyasagar Yadav & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 205 of 2018, under sections 409 I.P.C., Police Station-Thuthibari, District Maharajganj is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court concerned for passing afresh order in

¶11

accordance with law within the period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the court below within ten days for compliance.

¶13

The present petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.5.2023 Vibha

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sriniwas v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sriniwas v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekhar Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Salauddin @ Saanu Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Vs Smt. Rekha Devi

Chander Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saddam Vs State of U.P.