Geeta Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

Geeta Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the summoning order dated 13.09.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.9985 of 2020, with a direction to the concerned court to pass a fresh order without being influenced by the order of this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (JD), Court No.9, Agra in Complaint Case No.9985 of 2020, which omitted Sections 354 and 376 IPC from its operative portion despite mentioning them in the upper part of the order, was validly passed. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned summoning order dated 13.09.2022 was passed in a hurried manner without proper perusal of the record, and the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

To prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, the petition is allowed and the order dated 13.09.2022 is quashed; the concerned court shall pass a fresh order without being influenced by the order of this Court.

Key takeaways

In this Court's view, the accused has no right to prefer a criminal revision against the summoning order; only if the informant is aggrieved may he prefer a revision, and the only remedy available to the accused is a petition under Section 482 CrPC.obiter¶8
The explanation of the presiding officer that Sections 354 and 376 IPC could not be written in the operative portion of the order dated 13.09.2022 due to inadvertence was accepted.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.; order dated 14.02.2023) allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC (Application U/S 482 No. 34991 of 2022) filed by complainant Geeta Kumari against the summoning order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (JD), Court No.9, Agra in Complaint Case No.9985 of 2020 (Smt. Geeta Kumari Vs. Udal Singh and others). The impugned order summoned the accused only under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC although Sections 354, 376 IPC were mentioned in the upper part of the order but omitted from the operative portion; the Magistrate attributed the omission to inadvertence and his explanation was accepted. An earlier summoning order dated 03.01.2022 under Sections 323, 354, 376, 452, 504, 506 IPC had been set aside in Criminal Revision No.130 of 2022 (Udal Singh and others Vs. State of UP and another), allowed on 15.07.2022. The Court stated that the accused has no right to prefer a criminal revision against a summoning order — only if the informant is aggrieved may he prefer a revision, relying on Jagannath Verma and others Vs. State of UP and another, 2014 SCC OnLine All 11859 — the accused's only remedy being a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Finding that the impugned order was passed in a hurried manner without proper perusal of the record and that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction, the Court quashed the order dated 13.09.2022 and directed the concerned court to pass a fresh order without being influenced by its order.

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34991 of 2022

Applicant :- Geeta Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Swasti Misra,Pankaj Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

Heard Sri Pankaj Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has produced explanation by way of a compliance report tendering conditional apology, which is kept on record.

By this application the applicant has challenged the summoning order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (JD), Court No.9, Agra in Complaint Case No.9985 of 2020 (Smt. Geeta Kumari Vs. Udal Singh and others) on the ground that initially on 03.01.2022 accused persons were summoned under Sections 323, 354, 376, 452, 504, 506 IPC which was challenged in Criminal Revision No.130 of 2022 (Udal Singh and others Vs. State of UP and another) which was allowed.

According to this Court, the accused has no right to prefer a criminal revision against the summoning order. As per judgment of this Court in Jagannath Verma and others Vs. State of UP and another, 2014 SCC OnLine All 11859 only if informant is aggrieved, he may prefer a revision. The only remedy is available with the accused to file a petition under Section 482 CrPC. However, the revision was allowed on 15.07.2022 and the trial court was directed to pass afresh order after affording opportunity to the complainant. In compliance of the revisional court's order dated 15.07.2022 the complaint was again taken up by the concerned Magistrate and he passed the impugned summoning order on 13.09.2022 and summoned the accused persons only under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC though in the upper part of the order he has also mentioned Sections 354, 376 IPC but in the operative portion these two sections had not been mentioned. Being aggrieved, the complainant has approached this Court under Section 482 CrPC.

On 01.12.2022 a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the concerned officer to appear before the Court on 19.12.2022 at 04:00 p.m. in chamber to explain as to why he passed such order as aforesaid. On that day whole circumstances and developments relating to this criminal case have been mentioned and the Court observed that the impugned order shows total reluctance on the part of the Judicial Magistrate. In compliance of that order today the presiding officer has put in appearance in person before the Court and has given explanation that due to inadvertence Sections 354, 376 IPC could not be written in the operative portion of the order dated 13.09.2022. Explanation is accepted.

From perusal of the record this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order has been passed in hurried manner without proper perusal of the record. The trial court has been failed in exercising its jurisdiction, therefore, to prevent the abuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice the petition is allowed and the order dated 13.09.2022 is hereby quashed. The concerned court shall pass a fresh order without being influenced by the order of this Court.

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 Shahroz

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad