Allowed

Yameen and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2024A482/12335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding an impugned summoning order defective for lack of reasons and application of mind. The court quashed the order, re-mitting the matter to the trial court to pass a fresh reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 16.08.2023 is set aside and matter is remitted to pass a fresh reasoned order.

Yameen and 6 Others vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153269

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12335 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Yameen And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Pandey,Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for applicants.

¶7

This Court has again encountered with an unreasoned impugned summoning order wherein after referring statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., without application of mind, applicants are summoned. For reference, relevant part of impugned order is quoted below -:

¶8

" - 16.08.2023 दद ि नन ां कन

¶9

पतनवलली आदिदेश हदेततु पदेश हहई। पनरररनली अरधिवकन कको बहस तलबली पर दवस्तनरपपूवरक सतुनन गयन।

¶10

पररवनदिली नदे पररवनदिपत कन समररन अपनदे बयनन धिनरन 200 दिनां०प०सनां० कदे बयनन मम करतदे हहए करन दकयन हहै दक , ददिनननांक 18.08.2022 कको शनम करलीब 8.00 बजदे महै अपनदे घर कदे दिरवनजदे पर खडन रन। तभली यनमलीन शरनब पलीकर उसकदे सनर गनलली - गललौच करनदे लगन। मनन करनदे पर करलीब 10 दमनट बनदि यनमलीन , मलौहम्मदि जनन , आसमलौहम्मदि , मलौहम्मदि ममहन्दिली , मलौहम्मदि हसन , शनहजहननां , समलीनन हनरथों मम लनठली डन्डदे लदेकर उसकदे घर मम घतुस आयदे। आतदे हली गन्दिली गन्दिली गनरलयननां दिदेनदे लगदे। मनन करनदे पर मतुझदे मनरनपलीटन तरन घरदेलपू , सनमनन ककी भली तकोडफकोड ककी। जदेब मम रखदे 5000/- रुपयदे भली लपूट रलयदे। शकोर पर रलौदिनस उफर ननतुआ व रनममपूदतर नदे आकर बचनयन। जनतदे समय यह लकोग जनन सदे मनरनदे ककी धिमककी दिदेतदे हहए गयदे। वह उपरकोक लकोगथों कदे दवरुद्ध कनयरवनहली चनहतन हहै।

¶11

पररवनदिपत मम दकयदे करनथों कन समररन पररवनदिली नदे अपनदे बयनन अांतगरत धिनरन न 200 दिनां०प०सनां० व सनकली पलीडब्लपू० 1 रलौदिनस पलीडब्लपू० 2- जबररसनांह नदे अपनदे धिनरन 202 दिनां०प०सनां० कदे बयनन मम दकयन।

¶12

पररवनदिली कको सतुनन तरन पतनवलली कन अवलकोकन दकयन।

¶13

200 पररवनदिली नदे पररवनदिपत मम दकयदे गयदे करन कन समररन स्वयनां कन बयनन धिनरन दिनां०प०सनां० मम दकयन। पररवनददिनली कदे करनथों कन समररन सनकली पलीडब्लपू० 1- रलौदिनस पलीडब्लपू० 2- जबर रसनांह नदे दकयन हहै। उक सनदकयथों कदे बयननथों कदे अवलकोकन सदे

¶14

अदभयतुकगण यनमलीन , मलौहम्मदि जनन , आस मलौहम्मदि , मदेहन्दिली , मलौहम्मदि हसन , शनहजहननां , समलीनन 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 भन०दि०सनां० कदे अदभयकोग मम तलब दकयदे जननदे कन आधिनर पयनरप्त हहै। तदतुसनर अदभयतुकगण उपरकोक उक धिनरनओनां मम तलब दकयदे जननदे यकोग्य हहै।

¶15

आद ेि शद

¶16

अदभयतुकगण यनमलीन , मलौहम्मदि जनन , आसमलौहम्मदि , ममहन्दिली , मलौहम्मदि हसन , शनहजहननां , समलीनन 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 भन०दि०सनां० कदे अदभयकोग मम तलब दकयदे जननदे कन आधिनर पयनरप्त हहै। तद्नतुसनर अदभयतुकगण उपरकोक उक धिनरनओनां मम तलब दकयदे जननदे यकोग्य हहै। अदभयतुकगण कदे दवरूद्ध सम्मन जनरली हको। पहैरवली अदवलम्ब ककी जनयदे। पररवनदिली समस्त सनकलीगण ककी सपूचली पस्तु करम। पतनवलली ददिनननांक त 19.09.2023 कको पदेश हको। "

¶17

This Court has already taken a serious note of similar summoning order passed in Bangali Rathore and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024:AHC:118989 .

¶18

A judgment of Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 is relevant on this issue and its relevant paragraphs are mentioned below -:

¶19

"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:

¶20

"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.

¶21

52. 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 unlikely to result in a conviction.

¶22

53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply

¶23

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."

¶24

In view of above discussion, I find that it is a fit case where inherent powers of this Court could be exercised.

¶25

Accordingly, impugned order dated 16.08.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 809 of 2023 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., P.S.- Kaila Devi, District- Sambhal, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., Sambhal is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to pass a fresh order.

¶26

It is directed that District Judge, Sambhal will call an explanation from concerned officer who has passed above referred order not only closing his judicial mind but his eyes also.

¶27

A copy of this order be sent to Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Sambhal in regard to nature of order passed by concerned Officer.

¶28

Application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶29

Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.

¶30

Order Date :- 20.9.2024 P. Pandey

¶31

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yameen and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yameen and 6 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

Similar cases

Priyanka Sinha and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Hariom Tripathi and Another vs State of Up and Another

Harsh Mishra and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Savej Ansari vs State of Up and 5 Others

Narendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Panveshvari and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another