Allowed

Sonu @ Dinesh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2023A482/37482/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed applicant's petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a cryptic summoning order. The order was set aside for lack of reasons summoning persons not charged in the charge sheet, directing the trial court to pass a fresh, reasoned cognizance order.

What did the court decide?

The summoning order dated 18.07.2022 set aside. Trial court directed to pass a fresh and speaking cognizance/summoning order.

Sonu @ Dinesh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37482 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu @ Dinesh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akshayavar Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have prayed to quash the summoning order dated 18.07.2022 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 15476 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 628 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station Joni, District Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the marriage of Smt. Komal and Sonu @ Dinesh, the present applicant has been dissolved vide order dated 02.12.2021, which is appended with the paper book. As the marriage of the parties has been dissolved, so the entire proceedings of Case No. 15476 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 628 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station Joni, District Meerut, be quashed. Simultaneously, the summoning order dated 18.07.2022 is also prayed to be quashed.

¶8

It is true that the marriage of the parties has been dissolved by allowing application under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act on 02.12.2021 but during substance of the marriage the lady Smt. Komal had lodged an FIR against four accused persons; her husband, brother of the husband, wife of the brother of the husband and sister-in-law of the victim on 02.04.2019. As a result of this FIR the charge sheet was filed only against Sonu @ Dinesh and his father Dharambeer while the trial court has summoned Sonu @ Dinesh, Dharambeer, Mukesh, Mamta, Kukki @ Usha.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicants.

¶10

It is true that the marriage of the parties has been dissolved vide order dated 02.12.2021 but this order cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings of Case No. 15476 of 2019 arising out of

¶11

Case Crime No. 628 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station Joni, District Meerut.

¶12

If we go through the file, it is clear that the FIR was made against four persons; Sonu @ Dinesh, Mukesh, Mamta, Kukki @ Usha while the charge sheet was filed only against Sonu @ Dinesh and his father Dharambeer, who was not named in the FIR and Mukesh, Mamta and Kukki @ Usha were exonerated by the Investigating Officer.

¶13

If we go through the summoning/cognizance order of the trial court dated 15.12.2020, it is found that the trial court has summoned all the five accused persons; four persons named in the FIR including the husband and one more person Dharambeer, who is the father of the husband of the victim, who was not named in the FIR. Thus, summoning order has been passed against five persons and the cognizance has also been taken by the court concerned against all the five persons. However, the trial court has not mentioned even a single word about his satisfaction or the reason as to why five persons are being summoned by the trial court in place of two persons named in the charge sheet. The charge sheet has been filed only against two persons while the summoning order has been passed by the trial court against five persons. It was obligatory on the part of the trial court to mention the reasons and explain the grounds/satisfaction as to why the rest accused persons, who have not been charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer, are also being summoned or the cognizance is being taken against them also by the trial court.

¶14

In my opinion, the summoning order is cryptic order, which has not been preceded with any explanation of passing the impugned order. Therefore, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed on this ground only.

¶15

The application is allowed . Order dated 18.07.2022 is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh and speaking cognizance/summoning order after applying its judicial mind.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.1.2023 gp

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu @ Dinesh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Dinesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P.

Aditya Singh @ Chotu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Swamideen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nasim and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulsher and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mintu @ Vivek Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another