Mohd. Shanu and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77262

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10551 of 2024

Applicant :- Mohd. Shanu And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Srivastava,Anita Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Satish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.

¶8

3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.953 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ganga Ghat, District Unnao as well as impugned summoning order dated 18.01.2023.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that, though detailed reasons are not required to be recorded by the learned trial court at the stage of passing the summoning order, and only prima facie satisfaction regarding the availability of sufÏcient material to summon the accused persons to stand trial is required. However, he submits that from a bare perusal of

¶10

the impugned summoning order dated 18.01.2023 it reveals that the same was passed in a mechanical manner and without applying judicial mind. His further submission is that the present complaint was filed by opposite party no. 2 against the present applicants only. However, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial court has recorded a finding that, on the basis of the statement of opposite party no. 2, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the grounds for summoning Sarvesh Rathore, Tulshiram, Ramrati, Awadhesh Rathore, Ravi Kumar @ Horilal, Kamini, Saraswati, Naresh, Ranjeet, Sagar Mistri, and Rahul have been found to be sufÏcient, who were not at all mentioned in the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2.

¶11

5. On the basis of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial Court failed to advert to the complaint as well as the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C.; therefore, the aforesaid facts came to be mentioned in the impugned summoning order dated 18.01.2023. His further submission is that, after recording satisfaction in respect of Sarvesh Rathore, Tulshiram, Ramrati, Awadhesh Rathore, Ravi Kumar @ Horilal, Kamini, Saraswati, Naresh, Ranjeet, Sagar Mistri, and Rahul, who were not at all mentioned in the complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2, the

¶12

present applicants came to be summoned by means of the impugned summoning order dated 18.01.2023. He, thus, submits that the impugned summoning order dated 18.01.2023 is an example of non-application of judicial mind, which deserves to be quashed.

¶13

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer by submitting that it appears to be a clerical mistake only.

¶14

7. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, and upon perusal of the record, including the impugned summoning order dated 18.01.2023, this Court need not reiterate the fact that the summoning of accused persons is a serious matter, where the Court summoning any accused to stand trial cannot act in a mechanical manner.

¶15

8. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that order taking cognizance is a serious business and while doing so, the learned trial Court is expected to peruse the record so as to come to the conclusion that whether process is required to be issued to the proposed accused or not.

¶16

9. Thus, this Court having regard to the fact that in the impugned summoning order dated 18.01.2023, the learned trial Court has recorded satisfaction in respect of Sarvesh Rathore, Tulshiram, Ramrati, Awadhesh Rathore, Ravi Kumar

¶17

@ Horilal, Kamini, Saraswati, Naresh, Ranjeet, Sagar Mistri, and Rahul, who were not at all mentioned in the complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2, is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 18.01.2023 has been passed without application of judicial mind and contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard.

¶18

10. In view of the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of this case, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the impugned summoning order dated 18.01.2023 and directs the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order on the basis of the complaint and having regard to the statements of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., by means of a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶19

11. The instant application is finally disposed of , accordingly.

¶20

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) Order Date :- 22.11.2024 A.Dewal

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Shanu and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shanu and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suhel Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

X Son of Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Shaqeel Vs Vith Additional Civil Judge (Jd)/Judicial Magistrate Gonda and Another

Ajay Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another