Remanded

Bangali Rathore and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024A482/11143/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside a Magistrate's summoning order under Section 204 CrPC that gave no reasons or facts from the complaint and Section 200/202 statements, citing Supreme Court precedent, remitted for a fresh order and directed the District Judge to note the Magistrate's lapse.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 15.04.2023 set aside; matter remitted for fresh order; copy directed to Administrative Judge, Agra.

Bangali Rathore and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:118989

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11143 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bangali Rathore And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Srivastav,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶7

This Court has encountered with repeated orders passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. wherein learned Magistrates are not even referring facts and contents of complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and as such summoning orders, despite being a serious affair, are being passed in a very casual manner. Impugned order in present case is also a glaring example of it.

¶8

Impugned order is quoted below -:

¶9

“ पततवललपपशहहई।पररवतददयतकप दवदतनअधधवकतककपससजतनकप दबनददपर सदनतजतचदकतहह।पररवतददयतककओरसपदवपकलगणबसगतललरतठठर, तरणउरर नतनत।सनतकषलएवसगकपतलककधतरत-406, 420, 354, 504, 506, 120 बलभत०द०सस०कप असतगरततलबकरनपहपतदपतररनतपतपसतदतदकयतगयतहह। पररवतददयतनपअपनपपररवतदकप समररनममधतरत 200 दस०प०सस०कप अनतगरत सवयसककएवसधतरत 202 द०प०सस०कप अनतगरतपल०डबलल०-1 हरपनदकदमतर एवसपल०डबलल०-2 रदवपकतशरतठठरककपरलदकतकरतयतहह।सदनततरतअवलककन दकयत। अततसतकयकप अवलककनकप आधतरपरनयतयतलयककरतयममइसतथयकक प द षहकतलहहदकपततवललपरउपलबधसतमगल / सतकयकप आधतरपरदवपकल बसगतललरतठठरकप दवरदपरमदषयतधतरत-406, 323, 504, 506, 354 एभत०द०सस०एवसदवपकलगणतरणउरर लतलत, सनतकषलएवसगकपतलकप दवरद परम दषयत धतरत-323, 504, 506, 354 ए भत०द०सस० कत अपरतधगदठतहकततहह, धजसकप धलएअदभयदकगणतलबहकनपयकगयहह।अनय ” दकसलधतरतममअपरतधबनततपतलतनहहहकततहह।

¶10

I find merit in argument of Sri Gaurav Srivastava,

¶11

learned counsel for applicants that above referred order is not only bereft of reasons that there are sufficient grounds to proceed but facts of case are also not present and as such, impugned order is in teeth of judgment of Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 and for reference, its relevant paragraphs are mentioned below -:

¶12

"38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 which reads thus:

¶13

"51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused.

¶14

A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is

¶15

unlikely to result in a conviction.

¶16

However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

¶17

In view of above discussion, I find that impugned order does not survive since it has suffered with legal infirmities.

¶18

Accordingly, impugned order dated 15.04.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 10260/2022 (CNR No. UPAG04091902-2022) (Neelam vs. Bangali Rathor and others) pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court-4, Agra is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to concerned Court to pass a fresh order.

¶19

District Judge, District Court, Agra is directed to supply a copy of this order to Hon’ble Administrative Judge of Judgeship, Agra to take note in regard to nature of order passed by concerned Magistrate and if necessary, concerned Magistrate may be sent for fresh training.

¶20

Application is disposed of with above observations.

¶21

Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 25.7.2024 N. Sinha

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bangali Rathore and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangali Rathore and 3 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashutosh Patel and Others vs State of Up and Another

Raj Kumar Singh Nain and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tribhuwan Prasad Dubey and 5 Others vs State of Up and Another

Laxman and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangal Basoai and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Shivani Tyagi and 4 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others