Remanded

Smt. Tarannum and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2024/10636/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of summoning order under Section 379 IPC arising from a protest petition on an FIR whose investigation ended in a final report. The High Court found the trial court's order lacked judicial mind, set it aside and remanded for a fresh reasoned order on the protest petition.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 03.05.2024 set aside; trial court to pass fresh reasoned order afresh on the protest petition.

Smt. Tarannum and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78841

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10636 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Tarannum And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 03.05.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Unnao in Complaint Case No.396 of 2022 (Mariya Begum vs. Tarannum and others) under Section 379 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao and also quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.396 of 2022 (Mariya Begum vs. Tarannum and others) under Section 379 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Unnao.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that, in fact, the first information report bearing Case Crime No.6877 of 2010, under Sections 448 and 379 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao came to be lodged against the applicants at the behest of opposite party no.2. The investigation, which was undertaken pursuant to the aforesaid first information report culminated in the form of a final report on 27.11.2010.

¶10

His further submission is that the opposite party no.2 did not do anything for a very long period and thereafter, suddenly, on 27.05.2014, she filed a

¶11

protest petition, which according to learned counsel for the applicants, was directed to be treated as a complaint. The learned trial Court, having regard to the protest petition and the statement of opposite party no.2 as a complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of her witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 03.05.2024, whereby the present applicants came to be summoned for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C.

¶12

His next submission is that initially, the first information report was lodged under Sections 448 and 379 I.P.C., however, the applicants were summoned under Section 379 I.P.C. only without assigning any reason for not summoning them for the offence under Section 448 I.P.C. This fact shows that the complainant's version was not true in its entirety.

¶13

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report bearing Case Crime No.6877 of 2010, under Sections 448 and 379 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao was lodged with a view to harass the present applicants. His submission with vehemence is that the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 does not reflect the application of judicial mind, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the applicants have approached this Court at a very initial stage and no substantial progress has been made. The matter is at a very initial stage. Therefore, to approach this Court for quashing of entire proceeding itself is a misuse of process of this court by the applicants.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it is pertinent, at the outset, to mention that Hon'ble the Apex Court in Pepsi Food Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others , reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 (Para 28) has observed that

¶16

summoning the accused persons in any case is a serious matter.

¶17

Though, at the stage of summoning, the trial Court is not required to record detailed reasons therefor, only prima facie satisfaction is required to be recorded for summoning the applicants to stand trial. However, from a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that, in fact, the origin of the case relates back to lodging of the first information report bearing Case Crime No.6877 of 2010, under Sections 448 and 379 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, which culminated in the submission of final report. Therefore, in such factual background, it was also required for the learned trial Court to consider, even prima facie, the statements of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded by the Investigating OfÏcer during investigation.

¶18

From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned trial Court has also neither recorded any finding, even prima facie, as to whether the offence under Section 448 I.P.C. was made out or if there was in want of evidence in respect thereof, which shows non-application of judicial mind to that extent.

¶19

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 is not sustainable in law, which is accordingly set aside.

¶20

The matter is remanded back to the learned court below to pass an order afresh on the protest petition filed by the complainant which has been treated by the learned trial Court as a complaint with utmost expedition by means of a speaking and reasoned order in strict accordance with law, having regard to the entire facts and evidence available on record.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of .

¶22

Order Date :- 27.11.2024/Mahesh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Tarannum and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tarannum and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deependra Kumar Singh @ Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Sewak Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 8 Others

Jitendra Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Noori Vs Additional Court No. 5 Lko. District Lko. and Another

Munna Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another