Partly allowed

Rahul Thakur and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2023A482/18314/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court of Allahabad set aside a summoning order issued in a domestic dispute case for failing to record prima facie satisfaction. The Court directed the lower court to pass a reasoned order after hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 15.02.2023 set aside; matter remitted to lower court to decide afresh with reasoned order within three months.

Rahul Thakur and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108188

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18314 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Thakur And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey,Krishna Kant Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava , learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 15.02.2023 issued by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.7/Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No.2187 of 2023, (Smt. Shashibala vs. Rahul Thaku and others), under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kakod, District-Bulandshahr, pending before Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.7/Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 was married to opposite party no.2. Due to strained relations between two, applicant no.1 and his wife, the present complaint has been lodged against the applicant no.1 and his family members. After recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., applicants have been summoned vide order dated 15.02.2023, hence, the present case has been filed. He further submits that the concerned court below has passed the summoning order dated 15.02.2023 in a cryptic and mechanical manner without application of judicial mind as no prima facie satisfaction has been recorded by concerned Magistrate. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgement and order of this Court in Mahboob and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2017 (2) JIC 320 (All) (LB) and Smt. Shiv Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2017 (2) JIC 589 (All) (LB) and Mukesh Sharma And 2 Others Vs. State of UP and Another, decided on 07.01.2022 in Application u/s 482 No30406 of 2021 . Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer, however, he could not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶10

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶11

In Mahboob and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 320, (All) (LB) , specifically in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12, this Court has observed

¶12

as follows:-

¶13

"(11) In the present case, the learned Magistrate has not conducted any inquiry so as to satisfy himself that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered alongwith the statements recorded and the result of such inquiry. There is ground for proceedings against the petitioners under Section 204 CrPC. There is nothing on record to show that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. It must be recalled that summoning of accused to appear the criminal court is a serious matter affecting the dignity self-respect and image in the society. A process of criminal court cannot be made a weapon of harassment.

¶14

(12) Learned Magistrate has passed a very cryptic order simply by saying that the statement of complainant as well as witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are perused and accused are summoned such order per se itself illegal which could not stand the test of law."

¶15

Reliance is also placed upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 589, (All) (LB) . Paragraph No. 10 of the aforesaid judgement is relevant for the controversy in hand. The same is as under :-

¶16

"10. Learned Magistrate was required to at least mention in the order about the prima facie satisfaction for summoning the accused. The order must reflect that the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law after satisfying himself about the prima facie allegations made in the complaint. The accused cannot be summoned mechanically merely by writing that perused the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C."

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties as well as in view of judgments passed in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) and Mahboob (supra) the impugned summoning order dated 15.02.2023 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the court concerned to decide the same afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties, within a period of three months from today.

¶18

With the aforesaid directions, the present application stands allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 17.5.2023 Rahul.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Thakur and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Thakur and 4 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranjul Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar @ Guddu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aslam Parvez and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramgopal and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Abhishek Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Gayatri and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another