Partly allowed

Kanchan Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023A482/30872/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court quashed a non-speaking summoning order in a section 482 application. The court held the order was passed without applying judicial mind or assigning cogent reasons, setting it aside while allowing the application.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 01.05.2023 set aside; court below directed to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

Kanchan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170049

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30872 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kanchan Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Ram (Rawat),Indra Deo Mishra,Pramod Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

The applicants have preferred present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 9th, Agra in Case No.21141 of 2023 (State Vs. Hamendra Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.153/2022, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Mantola, District Agra. Further prayer is made to stay proceedings of aforesaid case.

¶7

The following order was passed on 01.05.2023 by the court below :-

¶8

"आज मम0 अ 0 सस0 153 / 22 अन्तररत धधारधा 498 ए, 323, 405 आई 0 पप0 सप0 व 3/4 डप००वप०एक्ट थधानधा मण्टटोलधा आररधा ससे वववसेचक दधारधा वववसेचनधा कसे पश्चधात आरटोप प्ቔ सस 0 17/23 ववरू्ቍ अवभo रण हसेमसेन्द, कसचन सससह, शधारदधा दसेवप पर ज म र धधारधा 498 ए, 323, 405 आई०पप०सप० व 3/4 डप००वप०एक्ट मसे न्यधायधालय मसे ्ቚस्तमत वकयधा रयधा। ्ቚप्ቔኘ᭖ कधा

¶9

अवलटोकन वकयधा रयधा आधधार पयधार्቎ हहै। दजर रसजस्टर हኘ᭖ अवभ 0 रण कसे सम्मन वद 0

¶10

15.7.23 कसे सलए जधारप हटो ।"

¶11

It is argued by counsel for the applicants that wholly illegally most of the family members were named in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no.2 and during pendency of the proceedings husband of the opposite party no.2 namely Hamendra Kumar Singh died on 14.04.2023. In so far as other applicants are concerned, allegations made against them are wholly illegally and without any cogent reasons. The summoning order was passed by the court below without assigning any cogent reasons.

¶12

This fact is also admitted by the learned AGA that the order impugned is non speaking order.

¶13

From perusal of the same, Court is of the opinion that the said order was passed without assigning any reason and without application of mind.

¶14

Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Magistrate is not a silent spectator before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise examine whether any offence is prima facie committed by the accused or not. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is clear from perusal of the order that not only the order is a nonspeaking order but the same has also been passed without application of judicial mind.

¶15

This view has been consistently taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1971) 2 SCC 654, Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736, Kishun Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (1993) 2 SCC 16, West Bengal vs. Mohd. Khalid reported in (1995) 1 SCC 684, Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Mehmood Ul Rehman vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others reported in (2015) 12 SCC 420.

¶16

On a bare perusal of the order impugned, the Court is of the firm opinion that order is cryptic in nature. It reveals from perusal of the same that the order impugned has been passed by which an accused has been summoned is a non-speaking order.

¶17

In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that order dated dated 01.05.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

¶18

9th, Agra is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. It is made clear that the court below is free to pass a fresh order but the same should be passed strictly in accordance with law.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the application is partly allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Pramod Tripathi

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kanchan Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Singh and Another 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

Chnadra Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Ji Lal Vs Randheer Singh and 5 Others

Smt. Asiya Vs Saidurrahman

Ramanand Dixit Vs Ajay Kumar Yadav and 7 Others

Anil Takiyar Vs Smt. Reena Shukla

Sabuddin @ Shahabuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another